Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH OLIVETTI LIMITED BILL [Lords]

EAGLE & GLOBE STEEL LIMITED BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that hon. Members should limit themselves to one supplementary question. I hope that Ministers will answer one supplementary only.

DEFENCE

Tornado and Trident

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated combined cost over the next five years of the Tornado procurement for the Royal Air Force and the Trident missile submarine system for the Royal Navy.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Francis Pym): The total cost to the United Kingdom of an order of 220 production GR mark Is and 165 production F2s would be £4,270 million by the end of the decade. So far as a successor to Polaris is concerned, I hope to make a statement at 3.30 this afternoon.

Mr. Hooley: Is the Secretary of State aware that, with a quarter of a million boys and girls on the dole, that would be an extravagant and grotesque waste of public money? The Government would be better employed building the industrial power of this country rather than wasting their time on futile aspirations to nuclear power.

Mr. Pym: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was referring to the Tornado or to the successor system. Both the previous Government and this are of the view that the Tornado aircraft is a necessary improvement to our RAF capability.

Mr. Nelson: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that the re-equipment of the Royal Air Force is an essential precondition of the employment of the young people to whom the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) refers and, indeed, to the security of the country? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that not only is this programme fulfilled at the earliest opportunity but that there is no delay, particularly in bringing the F2 into production? It is essential for our northern approach defences.

Mr. Pym: I agree with my hon. Friend that for our young people to have a safe and peaceful world in which to live it is necessary for us to have adequate defences to ensure that security.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend recognise the fact that the RAF welcomes the introduction of the Tornado in both versions with a great deal of expectation? Is he bringing pressure to bear on our colleagues in NATO with a view to selling either or both versions of the Tornado, in due course, to those who may wish to buy it?

Mr. Pym: Once we have the necessary numbers in our Air Force and those of our allies, there is no doubt that there will be markets for this aircraft overseas. That is a matter to which, with our allies, we shall look.

Gilding Instructors (Badge)

Mr. Bill Walker: asked the Secretary of State for Defence why the gliding instructor's badge is not included in the list of official Royal Air Force flying badges.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): Official Royal Air Force flying badges denote qualifications and skills which are directly related to the operational role of the Royal Air Force. They are sparingly issued and generally involve long and arduous training. The gliding instructor's badge is an Air Training Corps qualification which, important


as it is in its own right, does not fall into this category. This implies no lack of appreciation of the efforts of those members of the Royal Air Force and Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve who devote a great deal of their spare time to becoming qualified gliding instructors and to furthering the work of the Air Training Corps.

Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that clear explanation. Will he consider reviewing the situation that now exists, where RAF flying badges can be worn on the pullovers of Regular and Reserve officers whereas the air cadet gliding instructor badge cannot be so worn? This would go a long way towards removing the difficulties that exist over this badge.

Mr. Pattie: As my hon. Friend knows, the new regulations concerning the heavy duty jersey came into effect only on 1 May. After we have seen how they have worked for a little longer, I shall look at this matter again.

British Forces (New Hebrides)

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the pay, allowances and conditions of the British forces now stationed in the New Hebrides.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): Our forces now serving in the New Hebrides are receiving their normal pay and allowances, including local overseas allowance. About 150 men are accommodated in a school, making use of both classrooms and dormitories; and about 100 men are occupying tented accommodation. They are all regarded as being on field conditions and do not therefore pay the normal food and accommodation charges.

Mr. Price: Since the purpose of these forces is to act—when they act—in concert with the French, the other condominii of the condominium, may we have an absolute assurance that the pay, conditions and allowances are in no way inferior to those of the French forces alongside which our forces are expected to operate?

Mr. Hayhoe: I imagine that the pay of our forces might be above that paid

to the French forces, which are not in the New Hebrides at the moment but in the general area. The British forces are paid British rates of pay. I am sure that that is right.

Mr. Trippier: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Royal Marines are ideally suited for this peace-keeping role in view of their vast experience in similar overseas stations and in Northern Ireland? Is not the present situation further evidence of their ability to introduce stability into an area of political tension? Will the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State today send a signal to all Royal Marines in the New Hebrides assuring them of our support and complimenting them on the good job that they are doing under difficult circumstances?

Mr. Hayhoe: I am glad to acknowledge such remarks from someone whose knowledge of the Royal Marines is well known. The Royal Marines formed the spearhead battalion at the appropriate time. We are delighted that they fulfilled their role so effectively.

Mr. Concannon: Is there any truth in the rumour that the Royal Marilnes were asked to contribute towards the cost of getting to this station?

Mr. Hayhoe: There is no truth in that rumour. However, it is clear that loyalties to Services and to regiments are playing a great part in Question Time proceedings.

Cruise Missiles

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he intends to take to inform the public nationally why he has decided to station cruise missiles in Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Pym: I have done my best, both within this House and outside over many months, to explain to the nation why it is so vital for the defence of this country that these missiles should be based here. As I have already announced, I am taking special steps to make available further detailed information to those living in the neighbourhood of the two selected bases.

Mr. Adley: In light of the campaign spearheaded by the Moscow faction in the Labour Party, which is well illustrated by Question No. 5, will my right hon. Friend stress that an effective deterrent is the


best guarantee of Britain's peace? Does he agree that if the Afghans had had cruise missiles they would not have been invaded by the Russians?

Mr. Pym: I endorse what my hon. Friend says about the effectiveness of a deterrent strategy. That is our first responsibility in order to prevent a war from breaking out. If the Afghans had had that type of armament perhaps the history in that part of the world would be different. Nevertheless, we still hope that there will be a withdrawal by the Russian forces at some stage so that stability can be restored to south-west Asia.

Mr. Ford: What are the right hon. Gentleman and the Government doing to secure negotiations on a reduction in nuclear forces with the USSR prior to the deployment of the cruise missile?

Mr. Pym: When NATO announced its decision in December there was an arms control element to the agreement. The response so far from the Soviet Union has been extremely disappointing, although there are some signs that its attitude is altering. The United States proposes to withdraw 1,000 warheads unilaterally. That process is already in train. It has met with no remotely comparable response from the other side of the Iron Curtain.

Mr. Buck: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is widespread acceptance in his constituency, in my constituency and in neighbouring constituencies that it is right for the protection of our land and the Alliance that the missiles should be stationed here?

Mr. Pym: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. However reluctant it might be, there is widespread acceptance of the decision on the basis that, for security reasons, it is necessary.

Mr. Newens: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the stationing of cruise missiles here means that Britain will be made a primary target in any war, even if it is not of our making? How on earth can that represent any defence for the people of this country? Surely it puts them in a more dangerous position.

Mr. Pym: We have been in that position for many years, under Governments

of both parties. Only in alliance with our neighbours and allies can we secure our own and their security and freedom. The Alliance agreed unanimously that the modernisation programme was necessary. The Government also take that view. I have proposed and defended it in the House.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend aware how much the people of Newbury appreciate his offer to visit the town before the end of the month to explain the reasons for the missiles being based nearby? Does he expect to have available the further literature which the Ministry promised?

Mr. Pym: I shall be pleased to attend a meeting in my hon. Friend's constituency before the end of the month. I confirm that the further information will be available by then.

Mr. Rodgers: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that no sane man or woman wants the cruise missiles to be located here? Is he aware that his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) was unsatisfactory? Surely he must have noted that, during his visit to Moscow, Chancellor Schmidt persuaded Mr. Brezhnev to agree to negotiations in principle—which he was unwilling to do before NATO's decision last December to modernise. Is it not time for the Prime Minister to show the same interest in progress on arms control and disarmament?

Mr. Pym: There can be no doubt that this Government and hon. Members in all parts of the House would welcome any progress towards arms control. In so far as there is an indication of change, that is being discussed by the Alliance and particularly by the United States, which is affected principally by the negotiations. We wish to make the greatest response possible. The response that I made earlier was a fairly clear indication of the steps taken within the Alliance to make positive moves towards arms control.

Cruise Missiles

Mr. James Lamond: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will meet the Defence Minister of the Soviet Union to discuss the possibility of suspending the decision to allow cruise missiles to be sited in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Pym: The United States, with the support of its allies, has repeatedly offered to negotiate with the Soviet Union on the limitation of long-range theatre nuclear systems on both sides. I welcome the signs—such as they are—that the Soviet Union may be prepared to reconsider its earlier refusal to enter such negotiations. However, despite these signs the Soviet Union continues to deploy new and sophisticated theatre nuclear weapons at an increasing rate, thus widening even further the imbalance in its favour. There can be no question of unilaterally suspending the NATO decision on cruise missiles as this would remove any incentive for the Soviet Union to negotiate seriously.

Mr. Lamond: Has not the Secretary of State changed his ground a little since the last time we exchanged expressions about these matters because he said then that the Soviet Union had not moved? Has not the Soviet Union moved its position several times in response to requests for talks? Therefore, were not the talks which Chancellor Schmidt had in Moscow fruitful? Should we not be trying our utmost to follow his example, instead of boycotting the Olympic Games?

Mr. Pym: Frankly, we shall have to wait to see what proposals, if any, the Soviet Union makes. I welcome the signs, such as they are, but they have yet to be tested. I have indicated the Government's positive attitude on the important issue of arms control, and the action taken by the United States.

Mr. Onslow: Does my right hon. Friend accept that most people in the House, and in the country generally, regard his attitude and the attitude of the official Opposition spokesmen on this matter as being much more likely to secure a balanced reduction in nuclear weapons than the obsession with unilaterial nuclear disarmament which we see among Opposition Members below the Gangway?

Mr. Pym: I agree with the remarks of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Does not the Secretary of State recognise the MX missile, the Tornado and the commitment to 3 per cent. per annum up to 1985? Surely this is not a one-sided issue.

Mr. Pym: No, it is not. Our 3 per cent. is matched by something like 4 per cent.—perhaps more—on the other side. They have been sustaining a programme of new weapon production for many years in all sectors on the other side of the Iron Curtain, as the hon. Gentleman knows. It has never been, and is not, any part of our strategy to seek to match the Soviet Union weapon for weapon. What we and our allies require is a defensive capability that is adequate to deter.

HMS "Fisgard"

Mr. Hicks: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he hopes to announce his proposals for the modernisation and extension of HMS "Fisgard", Torpoint; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hayhoe: An announcement will be made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy as soon as possible.

Mr. Hicks: Will my hon. Friend confirm that his Department recognises the contribution that HMS "Fisgard" makes, both in the training of 600 artificers each year and in the local economy of South-East Cornwall in relation to defence? Does my hon. Friend take on board the fact that the delay is causing anxiety? Is he aware that if we were to lose HMS "Fisgard" it would be a blow to the area?

Mr. Hayhoe: Yes. The contribution that HMS "Fisgard" is making is well appreciated, as is the close interest of my hon. Friend in this matter. I can assure him that a decision will be announced as soon as possible.

British Airways (VC10 Fleet)

Mr. Trotter: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will consider purchasing the British Airways fleet of VC10s which are shortly to be replaced in civil use so that they may be available to augment the Royal Air Force existing VC10 transport and tanker aircraft.

Mr. Pattie: We have no plans to make an offer for these aircraft for use in the RAF's transport or tanker fleets.

Mr. Trotter: Does my hon. Friend accept that this is a one-off opportunity to acquire for scrap prices aircraft which would have a role for another 15 or 20 years in the RAF? Should not they be bought now while they are available and, if need be, kept until funds are available to bring them into service?

Mr. Pattie: My hon. Friend will know that the problem at the moment is one of not having the resources available to make the acquisition in the first place and not having the manpower resources available to operate the aircraft.

Mr. Wilkinson: If my hon. Friend's Department is unable to purchase these aircraft, can he say how the requisitioned aircraft from civil air transport companies which may be required under section 10 of the Civil Aviation Act will be crewed? Will the crews be subject to RAF discipline and if not, will he look into this matter as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Pattie: This matter is being currently studied.

Mr. Snape: The question that I was about to ask the Minister has just been asked by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). [Laughter.]—At least I was honest about it, Mr. Speaker. However, the Minister's reply was extremely unsatisfactory. He has been playing a dead bat on this issue for weeks. Does he intend to sign up British Airways pilots?

Mr. Pattie: I have just told my hon. Friend that this issue is being studied, and it is being studied.

Polaris

Mr. Cook: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce his intentions on the replacement of Polaris.

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the replacement of the Polaris weapons system.

Mr. Pym: I hope to make a statement later this afternoon.

Mr. Cook: rose—

Mr. Douglas: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Members are prepared to wait, I shall call them on the statement, probably. But that "probably" disappears if the hon. Members wish to pursue it now.

Weapons Manufacture (Raw Materials)

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements his Department makes to ensure that there are adequate supplies of the raw materials required for the manufacture of weapons necessary for national defence.

Mr. Hayhoe: This question is primarily one for my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Industry. The Government announced on 19 May that they would consult industry and others about the desirability of measures to improve continuity and security of supplies. The Ministry of Defence looks to its suppliers to take responsibility for maintaining and protecting their supplies. It normally only takes this responsibility itself where it manufactures its own weapons and equipment.

Mr. Jones: Does the Minister think that steel output of 15 million tons a year is sufficient for a modern industrial State with a strategic defence capability and responsibility? Has the Minister noted that the new British Steel Corporation chairman is, by the terms of his contract and the controversy surrounding it, almost unsackable and, therefore, could depress our annual tonnage target from 15 million tons, to, perhaps, 12 million tons a year? Will we have enough steel for example, for the new Challenger tank?

Mr. Hayhoe: There is no doubt that the supply and availability of steel will be sufficient to meet our defence commitments and, though this is primarily a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, I understand that the British Steel Corporation will have a mothballed capacity of up to 5 million tons. That, obviously, would meet any likely defence requirement.

Neutron Bomb

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether there have been any discussions, in the context of the NATO Alliance, or bilaterally, with the French Defence Minister concerning


the recent development by France of the neutron bomb.

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if, within the context of NATO defence, he proposes to have any discussions with the French Defence Minister regarding proposals to produce the neutron bomb.

Mr. Pym: There have not been any discussions bilaterally or within NATO of the French policy towards the development of enhanced radiation—reduced blast nuclear warheads nor are any such discussions planned.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Secretary of State realise that this so-called tactical weapon is designed to destroy human beings and leave buildings intact? It is almost the ultimate in Tory materialism. Will the Secretary of State assure us that under no circumstances will he consider the manufacture or use of this weapon? It has no part to play in deterring war. Does he agree that it would merely represent a statement that we would prosecute war to the detriment of mankind and the preservation of buildings?

Mr. Pym: I think that the hon. Gentleman's description of the nature of this weapon would also apply to the chemical warfare capability possessed by the Soviet Union. That is something that worries us a great deal. The purpose of the weapon, clearly, is to enhance the French deterrent capability. We have no plans at present to engage in the manufacture of weapons of that kind.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Will the Secretary of State consider talking to the French so as to stop them from manufacturing this weapon? The weapon uses enriched radiation and we know that people are still suffering from the effects of the bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This weapon will produce genetic and cancerous effects on the people who come into contact with it. Will the Secretary of State take steps to prevent this madness in the world?

Mr. Pym: I have no plans to engage in the sort of consultation that the hon. Gentleman invites me to have. However, I am quite certain that the thought behind the possibility referred to is to increase deterrence. That is what it is about.

There are unattractive weapons on the other side of the Iron Curtain but we do not hear so many complaints about them. Those weapons have characteristics which are as unattractive—if not more unattractive—as the characteristics referred to in the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Amery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are strong military arguments in favour of the production and deployment of the so-called neutron bomb? Can my right hon. Friend assure us that his Department is giving the fullest consideration to the question whether this would improve our strength? In view of the costs would he also assure us that he will not altogether reject, within the limits of other international agreements, possible co-operation with France in this matter?

Mr. Pym: It would be possible to make out a military case for this weapon on the lines suggested by my right hon. Friend. But I have to tell him that at the moment that possibility is not under consideration by me.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the most disturbing aspects of his answer is that he has not had discussions with French politicians about the neutron bomb, particularly in view of the fact that French military leaders co-operate at every level with British and NATO military leaders as though France was a member of NATO? The fact that France has withdrawn politically from NATO has not halted military co-operation. For the Secretary of State to say—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question Time is for asking questions, not for making an argument. If the hon. Member asks his question briefly, everyone will be happy.

Mr. Roberts: Is it not right that we should debate with French political leaders in issues that military leaders are discussing and debating? Or does it mean that military leaders and not political leaders are running NATO?

Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman knows that France has a special position in relation to NATO. The point of this weapon, and the possibility of France producing it—thought I understand that no decision has yet been reached—is to increase France's deterrent capability.
France has no aggressive intention of its own, as everyone knows very well. It is contemplating—as all of us within NATO are contemplating—how best to increase our deterrent capability. That is the reason for the thoughts which it is giving to this matter. It may be that I shall have some discussion with the French at some point, but I have no plans at present to do so.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on the introduction of the Challenger to our tank defence system, may I ask him, in the light of our appalling follow-up ability in the event of a conventional war—which limits us to a very short period of conventional defence—to review his position with regard to the neutron bomb and to go ahead and develop it?

Mr. Pym: I note what my hon. Friend says. As I have indicated, I am not doing that at present, but I take note of his point of view.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is not the position of the French on this matter somewhat similar to their attitude in the Common Market—that they expect to be defended but are not prepared to defend anyone else?

Mr. Pym: I think that is less than fair to the French, who make a substantial effort in regard to defence—[HON. MEMBERS: "On their own."] Well, on their own, but also in alliance with their neighbours. There is close contact between France and her neighbours, and certainly between France and the United Kingdom and France and the Federal Republic. She makes a major effort in regard to the Navy, Army and Air Force, as well as in the nuclear sphere, and it would be a great mistake to under-estimate the significance of the French contribution.

Persian Gulf

Mr. Temple-Morris: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his defence counterparts within NATO and the Western Alliance concerning the military security of the Persian Gulf area; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Pym: NATO Defence Ministers discussed the security situation in the south-west Asia area at the spring meet

ing of the NATO defence planning committee. Ministers agreed that the stability of this region, and the secure supply of essential commodities from it, were of crucial importance to the West.

Mr. Temple-Morris: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the creation of a Western Alliance rapid deployment force is vitally necessary, and should be treated as a matter of urgency, if our security in the Gulf area is to be safeguarded? Does he further agree that such a force is useless unless it has the necessary facilities with which, and in which, to operate? Is he able to tell the House anything about the progress on this urgent matter?

Mr. Pym: We are making some progress, based on what I wrote in the White Paper. The basis of the RDF is the United States forces. We have no plans to reopen any bases in that part of the world, but we would like to be able to have a greater capability and flexibility than now in support of the United States if a situation developed which required that kind of assistance. We intend to increase flexibility by stockpiling various items of equipment so that we could move more quickly, should the circumstances require it. I think that at present that extra capability is of a modest character, but at any rate I am sure that it is a move in the right direction.

Mr. McNamara: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Powers in the Gulf States have shown a marked reluctance to allow any signficant increase in bases by the Western or NATO Powers within their area? Should not we pay more attention to them, as they feel that there would be greater stability in the area if we, the Americans and the Russians kept out, rather than dabbling our toes in their little pool.

Mr. Pym: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said. As I indicated in my last supplementary answer, we have at present no plans to re-establish any bases in that area. I am sure that it will be in cooperation with the countries in that area that stability can most rapidly be restored.

Mr. Churchill: Is not it a sad commentary on the Western Alliance today that eight months after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Afghan


resistance fighters have very few weapons? Is my right hon. Friend aware that 80 per cent. of their weapons are Lee Enfield rifles? Furthermore, there is a critical shortage of ·303 ammunition. Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Government would be willing to entertain a request from the Afghan resistance fighters for small arms weapons and anti-tank and anti-air missiles?

Mr. Pym: That is a specific question, but I can say that the whole situation in Afghanistan is under constant review with our allies. My hon. Friend says that, in his view, the response has not been altogether adequate, and that is a matter of opinion. We remain extremely concerned about the fighting which continues in that part of the world and the resistance being put up by the Afghans. We are in the closest touch with the United States, our other allies, as well as friends around the world, and are keeping the situation under the closest review.

Mr. Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to say whether the story which emerged last week—that the beef from the Western European countries has got into Afghanistan—has been properly established? Can he also say how much has arrived there?

Mr. Pym: I am afraid that I have no information on that matter, and I would require notice of that question.

Sea King Helicopter

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce a decision about the replacement for the Sea King Helicopter.

Mr. Pattie: Studies to define a replacement for the Sea King Helicopter are continuing. My right hon. Friend does not expect to be in a position to announce a decision for some months.

Mr. Brotherton: I thank my hon. Friend for that non-reply. Can be assure the House that when a decision is taken, it will be in relation to a helicopter which is British-designed and British-built?

Mr. Pattie: I can assure my hon. Friend that I hope that that decision will be on the lines that he suggested. It is obviously

important for us to maintain a viable helicopter industry in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Duffy: Does the Minister's non-reply mean that design faults have been encountered? Why cannot the Minister at least say when project definition will be complete? What prospects are there for undertaking full development in collaboration with Italy?

Mr. Pattie: The non-reply to which the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend referred simply relates to the fact that the studies are continuing. As the hon. Gentleman will know from his own experience, there comes a time when it is appropriate to make an announcement, but that time has not yet been reached.

Cruise Missiles

Mr. Stoddart: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning the siting of cruise missiles since his recent statement.

Mr. Pym: Since my statement on 17 June, I have received about 75 letters and a small number of petitions about the basing of cruise missiles in the United Kingdom, of which some 10 have referred specifically to the particular sites chosen.

Mr. Stoddart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the siting of these weapons in the United Kingdom affects areas much wider than the bases themselves? Is he also aware that many people believe that these are essentially offensive weapons which invite a pre-emptive strike and that they are, therefore, very dangerous indeed? Will he show rather more alacrity in getting to grips with the offer made by the Russians to discuss theatre nuclear weapons without preconditions?

Mr. Pym: I readily accept that the implication of the decision on basing goes outside the confines of the constituency or immediate neighbourhood where the bases are located. I have already taken a number of opportunities to explain the reasons for that decision, and I shall take further opportunities next week and no doubt subsequently. On the important subject of arms control, as I think I indicated in earlier answers, I believe that we have taken a much more positive line—and our United States allies have taken very positive steps in


this area—which have not yet begun to be matched by anything which has happened on the Soviet Union side. It may be that there will be a change of attitude, but that remains to be seen.

Mr. Kershaw: If we decline to update our defences, will it be more or less likely that the Russians will agree to some measure of disarmament?

Mr. Pym: I do not have the slightest doubt that the decision to go ahead with the cruise missiles and Pershing Its will likely prove to be a cause of bringing the Soviet Union to the negotiating table. From that point of view alone, it is entirely right that we should adhere to the decision that we took.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is not the siting of the cruise missiles an irrelevance? Is it not a fact that cruise missiles make this country neither more nor less a nuclear target than it has been for the last 30 years? Does not that make it all the more important for the Government to tackle seriously the question of getting down to negotiations in the three years which lie ahead?

Mr. Pym: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's earlier comment. Of course, the basic decision is one of great moment for people in the immediate neighbourhood and the area around, but from the point of view of the United Kingdom generally, I agree with what he has said. With regard to the other matters, as I have said already, we are doing our best.

Hong Kong

Mr. Neil Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the present living conditions of troops on anti-illegal entry patrol in Hong Kong.

Mr. Hayhoe: I believe that those living conditions are reasonable, bearing in mind the operational tasks.

Mr. Thorne: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. May I assure him that the hazardous and exacting nature of that duty takes a lot out of those concerned? Will he further consider the matter with a view to making life more tolerable for those involved?

Mr. Hayhoe: I agree that a tough, disagreeable, but essential job is carried out by those troops. I shall see whether

any further improvements can be made—and some are being made now. If we take into consideration the fact that they are living under field conditions, the position is not too bad. There is no great reluctance among troops about being posted to Hong Kong.

Mr. Robert Atkinson: Will my hon. Friend maintain a continuing review of the living conditions of those troops facing the most difficult task of all, namely, those in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Hayhoe: Yes, indeed. Again, improvements are being carried out there—although that question is a little distant from the question about Hong Kong.

Mine Counter-measure Vessels

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many vessels of the Royal Navy, designed for minesweeping and mine counter-measure purposes, are currently in service; and how many he expects to be in service in 1983.

Mr. Pattie: A total of 34 mine counter-measure vessels are currently in service. On the basis of present orders one VT2 hovercraft—for MCM support duties—and four more HUNTs will have been added by the end of 1983. Four TON class vessels will by then have paid off. As the Defence White Paper said, we also plan to introduce a new class of mine-sweeping trawlers.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister agree that the mine-sweeping and mine countermeasure roles should be afforded a much higher priority than that now given to larger and more costly vessels, including Trident?

Mr. Pattie: The mine-sweeping role is extremely important. As the hon. Gentleman has said, all urgent needs must be ranked in an appropriate order of priorities.

Mr. Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Soviet Union has a large and formidable stock of mines and an equally formidable mine-laying capability? Will he raise this issue in NATO circles to ensure that the approaches are adequately protected with a sufficient fleet of mine-sweepers and mine-hunters?

Mr. Pattie: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for


Defence for the Royal Navy will have noted what my hon. Friend has said. We shall take an early opportunity to raise that matter in NATO circles.

Mr. James Johnson: Will the Minister say from where the new vessels will come? Is he aware that in the past we have suggested that the Government should use old, but active and good, vessels that are no longer fishing at sea? I refer to vessels such as the "Arctic Galliard" and the "Arctic Buccaneer", presently in Hull.

Mr. Pattie: I am aware of the suggestions made by the hon. Gentleman in the past about the use of the vessels that he has described. He will be aware that it is not simply a question of the capital costs of acquiring such vessels, but whether their lifetime costs and the costs of fitting various specialist pieces of equipment to them in service will necessarily provide the best bargain for the defence forces.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Are there enough mine-sweepers for the security of the Straits of Hormuz? If necessary, will the Government consider transferring British or allied mine-sweepers to the sultanate of Oman?

Mr. Pattie: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy will have heard what my hon. Friend has said. We shall consider that suggestion in the light of possible redeployment outside the NATO area.

Mr. Duffy: Because the need for MCMVs is so urgent, will the Minister bear in mind the urgings of my hon. Friends about looking more urgently to mine-sweeping trawlers and, preferably—as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) said—looking to those trawlers that are now laid up at Humberside?

Mr. Pattie: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is being given urgent consideration.

Cruise Missiles

Mr. Norman Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the costs to Great

Britain of the installation of the cruise defence system.

Mr. Pym: As I made clear to the House on 17 June, the total cost to the United Kingdom of the whole modernisation programme throughout the Alliance will be about £16 million.

Mr. Atkinson: Is the Secretary of State aware that in answer to Question No. 15 the Minister said that the installation of cruise missiles in Britain may persuade the Soviet Union to come to the negotiating table to talk about nuclear weapon reductions? Will he give an assurance that Britain will he represented at those discussions? Will Britain have the freedom unilaterally to negotiate with the Soviet Union about the withdrawal of cruise missiles from this country?

Mr. Pym: Any consultations would be carried out in conjunction with all our allies, especially the United States. This is not the moment to embark upon any unilateral move.

Neutron Bomb

Miss Richardson: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions have taken place within the context of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Alliance with the French Defence Minister concerning the testing of the French neutron bomb; or if any bilateral discussions have taken place.

Mr. Pym: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that I gave earlier today to the hon. Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and Aberdare (Mr. Evans).

Miss Richardson: May I remind the Secretary of State and the House about a petition that attracted more than 250,000 signatures some time ago, from people in Britain who were apprehensive about the Government of that time developing the neutron bomb? Will he convey those apprehensions to the French Government, and reconsider his decision to discuss the matter with them?

Mr. Pym: I note the hon. Lady's remarks. As I said earlier, I am sure that the French are thinking about the possibility of that weapon in the context of increasing their deterrent capability.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Cook: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 July.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I attended the thanksgiving service at St. Paul's Cathedral to mark the eightieth birthday of the Queen Mother. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the Foreign Minister of Nigeria. This evening I hope to have an Audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Cook: In the course of the Prime Minister's busy day, will she find five minutes to read the report to the Lothian health board saying that it must shed 300 nursing posts to stay within cash limits? Will she also read the report to the Glasgow housing committee saying that it cannot start any general needs housing for five years? Will she then return to the House and explain the perverse paradox of a Government who cannot find the money to pay nurses or build houses, but are about to announce the expenditure of more than £6 billion on the purchase of nuclear missiles?

The Prime Minister: The Government believe that the prime duty of Government is to secure the defence of the realm. We believe that freedom is worth preserving. The hon. Gentleman is inviting me to spend even more money. We could do that only by adding inflation on inflation, which would be disastrous; by adding to borrowing, which would increase interest rates; or by raising taxes, which are already too high.

Mr. Myles: During my right hon. Friend's busy schedule, will she find time to lend her support to the early implementation of the European sheepmeat agreement, which is so necessary to instil confidence in the autumn sheep sales?

The Prime Minister: We are doing all that we can to secure the early implementation of that agreement. Mr. Gundelach, the European Commissioner, is presently in Australia. He will be going to New Zealand this week to talk directly to the New Zealanders, for whom the future of that agreement is of paramount

importance. They must be able to make the arrangements that suit their economy and their just case.

Mr. Freud: In view of the independent report on the progress of academically gifted children in the comprehensive sector, will the Prime Minister now announce the abandonment of the assisted places scheme? If she will not, will she say what further evidence she needs, and why the report published today has been sat upon for 12 months?

The Prime Minister: No, we shall not abandon that policy. I am amazed that anyone from the Liberal Benches should seek to deny parents, who are heavy taxpayers, some element of choice.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, in any ministerial discussions about nuclear weapons, that without them the Russian conventional forces could sweep through Europe far quicker than the United States could move conventional forces into Europe to protect us?

The Prime Minister: Yes, but our manifesto also spoke of our pledge to ensure the continuing effectiveness of Britain's nuclear deterrent—for the very reason that my hon. Friend mentioned.

ARMS CONTROL

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Prime Minister if she will make a new approach for bringing about useful talks for the limitation of medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe.

The Prime Minister: The Government have supported the United States offer to the Russians to negotiate limitations on theatre nuclear forces. We shall be discussing with our NATO allies how to react to the recent Soviet response to this American offer.

Mr. Bennett: Will the Prime Minister agree that with world expenditure on armaments running at about $10 million per hour, it is essential that we do not re-escalate the world arms race, and that we take every opportunity to try to reduce world armaments, particularly by supporting such moves as Chancellor Schmidt's initiative? Will she take initiatives to press for a nuclear-free Europe?

The Prime Minister: The trouble is that during the time in which Russian expenditure on armaments has steadily and persistently increased, NATO expenditure on armaments has been falling. It is for that reason that President Carter led the demand for a steady increase in NATO expenditure of 3 per cent. per annum. For us to show weakness in the face of increasing Soviet expenditure would be to put the future of this country and our way of life in jeopardy, and that this Government will never do.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is not the position that the Soviet Union already has a substantial superiority in theatre nuclear missiles, and that many of those missiles are already targeted on this country?
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there can be no question of agreement unless the Soviets agree to stop their additional deployment of SS20 missiles in the European theatre?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Warsaw Pact countries have great superiority in theatre nuclear forces—about 3:1. There are about 940 Soviet medium-range missiles and bombers, including 100 SS20s. We have a very much smaller force and it is nothing like as modernised. Those who seek to have a nuclear-free Europe would do well to direct their efforts in the first place to Soviet Russia.

Mr. James Callaghan: While acknowledging the superiority of the Soviet Union in terms of throw-weight—or whatever jargon is used in this matter—may I point out that the Prime Minister did not answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) about Chancellor Schmidt, who has put forward a series of proposals for handling the interval of three years before the cruise missiles arrive? Will the Prime Minister support the approach that has been made by Chancellor Schmidt, which would increase the safety not only of British citizens but of people on the Continent of Europe?

The Prime Minister: We and the Americans and the rest of the NATO allies offered to have talks with the Warsaw Pact countries on the future of theatre nuclear forces and reducing the numbers. That offer was rejected and

Soviet Russia then set preconditions to talks. After Chancellor Schmidt's visit to Moscow those preconditions were removed and we are very pleased about that. Therefore, as I said in my initial reply:
We shall be discussing with our NATO allies how to react to the recent Soviet response to this American offer.

Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged to the Prime Minister. Her answer is helpful on the matter of procedure. But I was asking the question—as I think my hon. Friend was—on the matter of substance. What is the British Government's position in relation to the proposals put forward, among others, by Chancellor Schmidt?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to what I have already said. We believe in discussing these matters with our NATO allies, which is what I believe the right hon. Gentleman would have said had he been answering from this Dispatch Box.

Mr. Farr: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the NATO cruise missiles that will be stationed in Britain will only ever be fired as a result of a joint decision by the British and United States Governments? If that is the case, will she assure the House that the British Government will be in possession of a master key in relation to that firing?

The Prime Minister: The position with cruise missiles is the same as the position with other American nuclear weapons which have been here for a very long period. It is a matter for joint decision, and there is nothing different from the position that has obtained over many years.

TRIDENT

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if she will publish a Green Paper on the case for and the case against acquiring the Trident missile.

The Prime Minister: As the House already knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will be making a statement on this matter after Question Time today.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall be prepared to call the hon. Gentleman on the statement—if he would prefer that—after he has heard what has been said.

Mr. Dalyell: The question is addressed to the Head of the Government. On such a momentous issue, is it right to put a fait accompli to the House of Commons?

The Prime Minister: I believe that on a matter of this kind we have to do just that, and fully explain our reasons for it in a paper to the House.

Mr. James Callaghan: A few moments ago the right hon. Lady said that she believes in discussing these matters with her allies. Is she not ready to have a discussion with the House of Commons on what is probably the most important matter to come before it for 12 years? Should not she be making the statement herself? Does not she realise that there ought to be a serious and informed debate on this issue before the House finally makes up its mind?

The Prime Minister: We had a debate on the nuclear deterrent in January. That was the first debate that we have had in this House on that subject that I remember. The right hon. Gentleman will remember his own reticence on Chevaline. [Interruption.] When it came to taking a decision on the replacement of Polaris, we thought it right to take it in this way and to announce it to the House. A paper will be published on the reasons for the decision, as promised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence during that previous debate.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Goodlad: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 15 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier.

Mr. Goodlad: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to study the serious implications of the very high salaries being paid to the chief executives of some county and district councils, many of whom have highly-paid deputies. Does she agree that the degree of

moderation recently demonstrated by the chief executive of the West Midlands Council is but a very modest step in the right direction?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I hope that these chief executives will also follow the lead that I have recommended the House to follow in connection with our own salaries. Many people, in the West Midlands and elsewhere, are now agreeing to take reduced wage settlements in order to keep their industries competitive. They will feel very great resentment if the fruits of their efforts go to pay more top salaries to top people in town halls.

Mr. Ray Powell: Does the Prime Minister expect the 50,000 redundant workers or the 15,000 out-of-work steel-men, or even the hundreds of bankrupt business men—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Of course I am reading. [Interruption.] Does the—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman would have been much wiser to say that he was making copious use of notes. He is not permitted to read his question. He must try to memorise it.

Mr. Powell: It is very difficult, Mr. Speaker, because the Tories have devastated Wales to such an extent that we have great difficulty in remembering all the things that they have done in 14 months. Does the Prime Minister expect to have the welcome that we normally afford to Prime Ministers or members of Governments when she comes to Wales on Saturday, having devastated the steel industry, created 50,000 redundant workers, and hit the unemployed, the sick and the homeless? [Interruption.] In view of all those things, does she really expect a welcome on Saturday? [Interruption.] Would it not be far better—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the Prime Minister heard enough to answer.

The Prime Minister: I shall attempt to answer the bit that I heard. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman remembers that I once went to a Tory Party conference in Ebbw Vale, soon after the shutdown of some of the steelworks in Ebbw Vale had been announced by the previous Government. We realised that it was necessary to try to get the steel firms into a better competitive position. There is still a need to do so. I hope that when I go to Wales the


people will realise that the Government have done a great deal to show their concern—[Interruption.]—for the inevitable redundancies by providing about £48 million for remedial measures to provide new jobs, and about £15 million further north in the case of Shotton.

Mr. Peyton: While I accept that the Prime Minister's replies are a great deal better than most of the questions deserve, will she reconsider a practice under

which, monotonously, twice a week, week after week, 40 or 50 hon. Members inquire what she is doing on the day she answers Questions?

The Prime Minister: My job is to keep the answers in order. It is the job of Mr. Speaker and hon. Members to keep the questions in order. I do not think that I have transferred a single oral question, I am happy to take the bowling from wherever it comes.

STRATEGIC NUCLEAR DETERRENT

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Francis Pym): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the eventual replacement of the Polaris force, which now provides Britain's strategic nuclear deterrent.
As the House knows, the Government regard the maintenance of such a capability as an essential element in the defence effort that we undertake for our own and Western security. I made clear the reasons for this policy in the debate on 24 January.
We have studied with great care possible systems to replace Polaris. We have concluded that the best and most cost-effective choice is the Trident submarine-launched ballistic missile system developed by the United States. President Carter has affirmed United States support for British retention of our strategic nuclear capability and United States willingness to help us in this. An exchange of letters between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the President, with a supplementary exchange between the United States Secretary of Defence and myself, is being published today as a White Paper.
The agreement that we have reached is on the same lines as the 1962 Nassau agreement, under which we acquired Polaris. We shall design and build our own submarines and nuclear warheads here in the United Kingdom, and buy the Trident missile system, complete with its MIRV capability, from the United States. Once bought, it will be entirely in our ownership and operational control, but we shall commit the whole force to NATO in the same way as the Polaris force is committed today. The new force will enter service in the early 1990s and will comprise four or five boats. We need not decide about a fifth boat for another two or three years, and we are leaving the option open meanwhile.
I am publishing a memorandum explaining our reasons for choosing Trident. Advance copies of this memorandum are available in the Vote Office. It gives the very full account which I promised to the House, and I am sure that the House will wish to study it.
We estimate the capital cost of a four-boat force, at today's prices, as up to £5 billion, spread over 15 years. We expect rather over half of the expenditure to fall in the 1980s. We intend to accommodate this within the defence budget in the normal way, alongside our other major force improvements. We remain determined to uphold and, where necessary, strengthen our all-round defence capability, and that applies to our conventional forces no less than to our nuclear forces.
I intend that as much work as possible should go to British industry. At least 70 per cent. of the total cost will be spent in this country, and that will be reflected in a substantial amount of employment.
The decision that I have announced is one of cardinal importance, as the House will recognise. The Government regard it as an essential reaffirmation of our national commitment to security and to co-operation with our allies under the North Atlantic Treaty. The United Kingdom's continuing possession of a strategic nuclear capability remains a major element in our deterrent strategy, and a major contribution to the defence of Western Europe. As the House knows, our strategy, with that of our NATO allies, is entirely and absolutely defensive in concept and in scope. It is designed solely to preserve peace and to prevent war. Until genuine wide-reaching multilateral arms control can be negotiated, any diminution in the pattern and structure of our wholly defensive capability must increase rather than reduce the risk of war, especially at a time when the Soviet Union is rapidly building up its massive military strength.
In these circumstances, and while we must regret the need for such weapons, the Government are confident that the decision that I have now announced will have the general support of this House and of the country.

Mr. Rodgers: As the Secretary of State said, his statement is of cardinal importance and it will have grave consequences for our country, and perhaps for the world, for a long time ahead. I hope that he will understand that it is with no disrespect that I endorse the sentiments expressed earlier by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that this statement should probably have been made by the Prime Minister.
The whole House recognises that this matter raises difficult political issues, because it involves a question of judgment about the state of the world and the Alliance 15 to 20 years ahead. Also, on the figures that the right hon. Gentleman gave, it raises difficult financial issues. First, the cost is high in terms of our conventional obligations in NATO. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House will be worried by the effect that that may have, within the defence budget, for our present obligations. As both sides of the House will recognise, with limited national resources at a time of no growth, or slow growth, this programme will pre-empt a large sum of money, which could go towards other worthy programmes.
We have asked, first, for a full and informed debate, which has not taken place. That is not only the view of the Opposition, and not only the view in the House. Secondly, some time ago we asked specifically for a Green Paper, and the right hon. Gentleman refused us that. Thirdly, at this moment a Select Committee is considering some important issues relating to this decision on behalf of the whole House. There are those who will say that it could be a contempt of the House for the Secretary of State to make an announcement of this sort before the Select Committee and the House have had the opportunity to discuss the matter.
Irrespective of arguments about what may or may not have happened in the past, in today's circumstances an announcement of this sort, made in this way, falls far below the standards that the Government should set on such issues. In those circumstances, many hon. Members are deeply sceptical about the decision. We believe that the case for buying Trident has not been made, and we cannot approve it.
In his statement the Secretary of State referred to the Government having studied with great care possible systems to replace Polaris, but neither the House nor the country has had such a privilege, because the information available to the Government has not been made available on a wider scale. I hope that in these circumstances the Government will not act further on their decision, given the long lead-time to which the right hon. Gentleman referred and the publication today of a

memorandum containing much new information—at least, we must hope that that is the case. I hope that the Government will not proceed further until a full debate has taken place, not only in the House but in the country at large.

Mr. Pym: The way in which the Government have considered this important matter and announced their decision to the House is wholly in accordance with our parliamentary and constitutional practice. It is for the Government to come to their conclusions and then to present them to and defend them in the House.
We arranged a debate in January. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was not adequate. But it was on our initiative, and I set out a fundamental description of the rationale of the nuclear deterrent strategy. I think that it was a useful occasion as a preliminary to the decision that I have announced today.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the memorandum that I promised the House—it should by now be in the Vote Office—is the fullest explanation of its kind that the House has ever had. I am sure that the House will wish to consider all that is said there. It is appropriate and in line with our parliamentary practice to do it in this way rather than on the Green Paper basis, which was asked for earlier.
A debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I should certainly welcome it. I hope that we can arrange one, because I believe that, apart from any other consideration, it is necessary to present the case for a decision of this kind in a positive way, so that the House may form its view about it. Therefore, I hope that will be possible.
This is a most difficult judgment to make looking so far ahead into the 1990s. I have approached it with the utmost humility and been prepared to consider all the various possibilities that have been mentioned at one time or another during the past year and others besides, and these are set out in the paper. I think that that will be a helpful way to proceed.
Regarding the high cost, in the basic sense it is a very large sum of money indeed, but we have to look at it also in the context of what we are trying to achieve with our allies in securing peace. We have between us managed to achieve


this in Europe for 35 years, and our strategic deterrent has uniquely made more than a contribution to it.
Of course there will be an effect on other weapons systems, but that is true of any weapons system. For instance, even the Tornado system—more expensive than the Polaris successor system that I have just announced—has its effect on other weapons systems. They all interact. But the provision of the strategic deterrent has always been part of normal defence budgeting. It is a weapons system, like any other weapons system—ships, tanks or whatever it may be. Within the defence budget this can and will be accommodated in the same way as Polaris was accommodated 10 to 20 years ago.

Mr. Buck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a vast majority of responsible people in the country and hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome what he said today as a realistic assessment of the defence situation? Is he also aware that many will welcome it, as he reaffirmed, as a basis for future multi-force reductions'? It will mean that we can go into negotiations about arms reductions in a position of comparative strength, which is wholly necessary if they are to be successful.

Mr. Pym: I am grateful for what my hon. and learned Friend said. I emphasise that what I have announced is the continuation of an existing capability. It would be a much more significant announcement if I said that we were not going to continue with something that has been such a critical element in the whole structure of our defence capability with our allies. What I have announced today, after the most careful thought within the Government, is how we, in our judgment, believe that this job is best done.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the Secretary of State aware that we on the Liberal Bench have consistently opposed the whole concept of an independent nuclear deterrent? Therefore, his announcement today gives us no joy. In fairness, with regard to the question that has just been put to the right hon. Gentleman, it is also the case that many intelligent people in this country have argued against the replacement of Polaris.
When are the Polaris submarines likely to be phased out? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that even if it adds only 8 per cent. to the defence budget in the latter part of the 1980s—and the arguments presented to the Select Committee are that it is much higher than that—our Armed Forces will have the updating of their equipment that they so desperately need?

Mr. Pym: I cannot say precisely when the Polaris force will be phased out. It is expected to be in the early to mid-1990s, when the boats and the systems within them come to the end of their useful life. I cannot be more precise than that at this stage.
As for the percentage of the budget, overall this expensive weapons system will take between 3 per cent. and 4 per cent. over the 15-year period, but at its peak years it will be about 5 per cent. of the whole defence budget and 8 per cent. of the equipment part of the budget. It is necessary to get these figures into perspective.
I fully appreciate that the hon. Gentleman and the Liberal Party have reserved their position on this matter, but the Government have long been of the view—however unattractive and however reluctant—that in the circumstances in which we find ourselves this is a contribution to our safety and security that we can ill afford to do without.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Secretary of State aware that, given the lack of funds for the objectives that should be the aims of a civilised society, the diminishing of the social services and the descent of the home front into recession quickly, to spend this money on this weapons system is a tacit acceptance of the Nazi philosophy of guns before butter?

Mr. Pym: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the aims of a civilised society. If we do not adequately protect that society, there may not be a civilised society.

Mr. Kershaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that both the content of the statement and the manner in which it has been presented this afternoon will inspire confidence that the right decision has been reached? Furthermore, is it not in accordance with our custom and constitution that the Government should take


responsibility for decisions and then come to Parliament to get its endorsement?

Mr. Pym: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said at the outset. I agree that the manner in which we have conducted this matter and the procedure that we have used are completely in accordance with parliamentary practice.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that there will be general relief and satisfaction that Britain has decided to remain in the front rank of nations in nuclear as well as conventional armaments?

Mr. Pym: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman said. I share the anxieties of all hon. Members who fear the spread of nuclear weapons, which we are dedicated to do our very best to prevent.

Mr. Amery: Having had responsibility for co-operation between Bomber Command and Strategic Air Command and later for the technical purchase of the Polaris missile, may I congratulate the Government most warmly on the momentous agreement that they have reached with the American Administration? I fully endorse the decision to commit the Trident missile system to NATO, when we acquire it, but can my right hon. Friend assure me that it will be wholly independent operationally, whatever the circumstances may be in future?

Mr. Pym: When the weapon is assigned to NATO it is assigned under the same terms and conditions as Polaris. Only in the extraordinary circumstances of our national security being directly threatened will the United Kingdom's ownership and sole operation come into play. Were it ever to be used, if one can contemplate such horrendous circumstances, whilst it is assigned to NATO, of course it would be under NATO that it would be used but never without the direct authority of the British Government.

Mr. Cook: Does not the Secretary of State find any irony in making his statement on the day when one of the biggest drops in industrial output since quarterly returns were kept has been announced? Against that background, is it not time that we admitted that we cannot go on providing the Alliance with the second largest navy, the second largest expe

ditionary force, and one of only two strategic nuclear deterrents formally committed to it? Will he at least come clean and tell the House what equipment he will now not be able to purchase as a result of this pathetic effort to pretend that we are still a super Power?

Mr. Pym: There is no direct relationship between the requirement of this country for its security and the output of its industry—not in the short run. In the long run, I have always made clear that, of course, the strength of a nation is directly related to its economy—but not in the short run, and it was in the short run that the hon. Gentleman was raising the question.
The hon. Gentleman asks what equipment we shall not order as a result of this decision. One could ask exactly the same question about any other item of equipment. The provision of the strategic deterrent has always been fitted into the defence programme, just like all the other items of equipment. In the equipment field, the defence budget is planned to take account of it. Tornado will be past its peak by the time this system begins to reach its peak. They will have to be worked together.
If we do not have this we shall be missing one of the fundamental elements in the structure of our defence capability. What our defence budget has to do, together with the budgets of our allies, is to produce a military capability that is altogether adequate to deter the intentions of any would-be aggressor.

Mr. Wall: I greatly welcome the Government's decision, as there is clearly no satisfactory alternative to Trident. When does my right hon. Friend expect the first new submarine to be laid down? Will he also assure the House that in view of the number of submarine building yards in this country, this decision need have no effect on the building of fleet submarines—that is, nuclear hunter-killer submarines—or conventional submarines?

Mr. Pym: I cannot say yet exactly when the first keel will be laid. There are obviously more detailed decisions that will flow now that this decision has been announced today, so I can only say "A few years' time". I cannot be more precise at this stage.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State admit that while he is arguing that this is a continuing weapons system development, the order of magnitude involved here imposes on him a responsibility to give the fullest information possible to the House and country? Additionally, in view of the strain on British Shipbuilders and the need to establish a coherent programme in terms of naval building, will he update his time scale, in relation to giving British Shipbuilders an indication when the first submarine will be necessary?
Lastly, in view of the position in my own constituency, in Rosyth, is it not about time that the right hon. Gentleman reversed the decision there to cut down the apprentice intake into Rosyth dockyard if this submarine system is to be implemented in the future?

Mr. Pym: I certainly accept my responsibilities for giving the House the maximum possible information. I have sought to fulfil that undertaking in the memorandum that is published, which will be studied. In accord with my undertaking to the House, I have announced this decision at the earliest possible moment. It has only just been made. Therefore, the consequences for shipbuilding, which of course are very important, particularly at present, will, so far as detail is concerned, have to be taken into account in the future. But these matters are under close review already. When we can make announcements we shall do so.

Sir Frederic Bennett: A potentially misleading reference to the Select Committee on defence has been made. Is the Minister aware that the terms of reference of that Select Committee do not cover the question whether or not we should have our own strategic nuclear deterrent? They cover the question of what sort we ought to have. Doubtless the Government's decision today will be taken into account.
The Minister mentioned a debate. In consultation with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, can be say whether the debate will be fairly soon? It would be a pity if the country were left in any doubt about what the great majority of its elected representatives felt on this issue for any longer that is absolutely necessary.

Mr. Pym: I am sure that the whole House will agree that the work that the Select Committee is doing in considering this subject will be extremely useful to the House in due course. I know that it is at present hard at work studying this subject. On the matter of the debate, I shall have urgent discussions with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and we shall see what we can arrange.

Mr. Cartwright: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the new warhead to be built in this country will not be the Chevaline system but will be the reproduction of the American Trident system? Secondly, will he confirm that since Trident has a MIRVed system, the number of individual warheads to be deployed in a Trident fleet will be a substantial increase in the number now deployed in the Polaris system? How does he square that with his Government's commitment to non-proliferation in these matters?

Mr. Pym: The warhead will be made in the United Kingdom. It will not be Chevaline, which will keep our Polaris updated for 10 years or so. It is correct that the number of warheads will be increased, but that is not related to the question of non-proliferation.

Mr. Emery: Does my right hon. Friend realise that most people in this country in the 1990s and at the turn of the century will be able to sleep in their beds more safely because of his statement here today? Will he hammer home the fact that £3·5 billion will be spent, starting in the early 1980s, in British industry, which is exactly what both sides of the House want—particularly Opposition Members—in order to stimulate growth within the economy? My right hon. Friend should be congratulated on being able to obtain that degree of injection into the British industrial economy.

Mr. Pym: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says. It is obvious that defence has the capability of creating jobs and employment. At a time such as this, that is something that many people naturally find attractive. It is a separate issue from what I am talking about today, but there certainly will be a great deal of work generated by this decision, over quite a period of years. I am sure that from that point of view, at the very least, it will be welcomed by all, whatever their views.

Mr. Heffer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that despite the euphoria that has been shown on the Conservative Benches and in some parts of my side of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"]—there were one or two—there will be mililons of people in this country and in other parts of the world who will be in utter despair—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name them."]—because of the Government's decision, taken without any debate? Is it not clear that this £5 billion could be better spent on generating real industry in Britain and getting our people back to work, instead of creating a new series of nuclear weapons which, if they go off, from either side, can utterly destroy the world?

Mr. Pym: As I said in opening the debate in January, these weapons exist, unfortunately, and we cannot disinvent them. Whereas, of course, we would all prefer to live in a world in which they did not exist, I think that it is wrong to describe millions of people as being in despair. There is certainly a reluctance in relation to the fact that nuclear weapons still exist, but there is also, in today's circumstances, an understanding of why they are necessary until, between us, we can negotiate them away.
The hon. Gentleman said that it was wrong to make this announcement without a debate. In January I presented to the House the fundamental reasoning behind the deterrent strategy. In fact, for what it is worth, the House voted by about 6 to 1 in favour of the Government's exposition on that occasion. I do not make a point about it; I mention it as a fact.
As for generating British industry, a considerable amount of generation in British industry will arise from this decision. I understand the hon. Gentleman's views on this matter. Indeed, I go so far as to say that I understand the point of view of people who will not agree with what I have announced today. I can understand it, but, unfortunately, it is necessary for us to have this capability, because if we were to lower our guard, if our shield were to be in any way inadequate, we should be committing a major failure of responsibility for the protection of the citizens of this country and those of our friends.

Mr. Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend take comfort from the fact that the vast majority of people in this country would rather be defended by the Trident missile than by the Tribune group?

Mr. Conlan: Is it not thoroughly disgraceful and discourteous to this House and the country that the Government should rush headlong into this decision at the very time that the Select Committee is considering the whole range of possible options that will be open to us for the replacement of the Polaris force? Will the right hon. Gentleman give a firm undertaking that no irrevocable decision will be made until after the Committee has reported?

Mr. Pym: No, I do not think that it is a disgrace, nor have I rushed leadlong into a decision. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I and other Ministers have given the most careful and extensive thought to a decision that is clearly of the utmost importance. We have not rushed it. We have taken our time about it. We have announced it now because in our view it is necessary to get on with the responsibility of carrying through the decision if, by the early 1990s, the system is to be ready. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said about the Select Committee, but I do not think that its free, unfettered and independent decision to undertake a review of the strategic deterrent should inhibit a Government from making a decision that they believe to be necessary, and in the national interest.

Mr. Mates: Despite the remarks made by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) and by the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers) about what the Committee is doing, it is clear to all members of that Select Committee that we are not considering the question whether there should be another gentration of nuclear deterrents. We are considering the consequences of the decision announced in the House. Given my right hon. Friend's statement, is he aware that our work will be greatly helped by a firm lead from the Government, as that will enable us to consider the consequences for the rest of the defence budget?

Mr. Pym: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making those points. I should have thought that the Select Committee's deliberations would make a positive contribution to the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call four more hon. Members from each side. That will give a very fair run.

Mr. George: Will the Secretary of State reveal the percentage of the new equipment budget that the Trident replacement represents? Secondly, does he accept that his explanation of the reasons, the cost, and the consequences for the rest of the defence budget is inadequate? Does he realise that his statement will not be accepted by many hon. Members until much more information has been given?

Mr. Pym: The figure that I gave was between 3 per cent. and 4 per cent. of the defence budget over 15 years. I think that I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Churchill: Given that the number of Soviet warheads targeted on the United Kingdom and Western Europe has more than trebled in the past decade alone, does my right hon. Friend not agree that the arguments in favour of Britain's having an independent nuclear capability are even greater than they were when Mr. Clement Attlee and the post-war Labour Government took the courageous decision to make Britain a military nuclear Power? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the decision announced today will be seen as an enhancement of the deterrent posture of the entire Alliance?

Mr. Pym: I do not see any advantage in making such a comparison. Having thought about this issue deeply over a lengthy period, we came to the inescapable conclusion that, in present circumstances, the continuation of a nuclear capability was necessary.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Secretary of State accept that his decision is an affront and an outrage to humanity? Given the cuts in social services, education, school meals, and so on, does he not accept that people will regard the decision as the result of a completely corrupt set of priorities? Does he realise that it will not enhance industry, but will corrupt

our research and development? A few days ago we saw on television that people were dying of starvation on the roadsides of East Africa, yet the Government have cut overseas aid by 14 per cent. The Government's decision will be seen for what it is, namely, an outrage against humanity.

Mr. Pym: I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman said. There is no doubt that great suffering, hunger and distress exist all round the world. However, a potential conflict and threat also exists. We must do our best with our limited resources not only in defence but in relation to all needs. We must contribute as much as we can to relieving the distress of humanity. It would however, be a serious crime if we were to allow our defences to fall to too low a level. More should be said and heard about some of the other outrages that are perpetrated against humanity by those living on the other side of the Iron Curtain.

Mr. Robert Atkins: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the manner in which and the courage with which he made the statement? Before the myth of lack of consultation grows—led by Opposition Members—will he confirm that it is the Government's job to make decisions on policy matters and to bring them before the House for discussion? During the course of the next few weeks, months and years, will he emphasise that NATO's posture is totally defensive in its acts of deterrence, and not offensive? Does he agree that it is important to get that point across to the public?

Mr. Pym: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. I agree with all his comments. I take every possible opportunity to explain the nature of NATO strategy. I try to explain that it is entirely defensive and that it exists solely in order to preserve the peace. I take every possible opportunity to explain to the House and to the public about the need to have the strongest defence that we can afford. Naturally, we hope that it will ultimately be possible to preserve peace throughout the world at a lower cost in terms of men and resources. Until then, we must play our part in this pattern. That is the right policy.

Mr. Newens: Can the right hon. Gentleman envisage any circumstance in


which the British nuclear deterrent might be used independently of our NATO allies? Can he envisage any circumstance in which the British public might benefit from such a use? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot postulate such circumstances, are we not adopting a tremendously expensive deterrent purely for reasons of prestige, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said? Is that not a disgrace, given that the Government have plunged the country into economic decay?

Mr. Pym: There is no question of prestige or status. It is a cold analysis of the facts. The deterrent capability exists to preserve the peace. It exists not to be used. It is the threat of use that provides the element of deterrence. As I explained at some length in January, we wish to influence fundamentally the thinking of the Soviet leadership, so that there is no misunderstanding of the consequences of certain actions by them, or by anybody else. The deterrent exists not to be used. Without it, we would have no retaliatory capability. There would be no ultimate recourse, and the pattern of deterrence would not be complete. That is the awful truth. It is uncomfortable to live with it, and it is expensive. However, it is not as expensive as a war. The deterrent plays a vital part in the pattern of our defences, and thus prevents such a thing from happening.

Mr. Brotherton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although we welcome his statement, some of us are slightly suspicious about his reference to there being four or five boats. Is he aware that if the deterrent is to be completely credible, five boats will be required? Two boats would then be on station at all times. We have got away with it for 15 years. Let us not try to get away with it in the 1990s.

Mr. Pym: I note what my hon. Friend says. There is no need to take that decision at this stage, and therefore we shall not do so. The United States navy and other navies have often noted the remarkable achievement of the Royal Navy in that it has been able to maintain at least one, and practically always two boats at sea out of a total force of four boats. Let us not decide about that now, as it is not necessary. There is no

need to be suspicious. I have been as forthcoming as possible. I have based the strategy on four. If we decide to go for five, and if we can afford it, we may make that decision. However, until then it is right to proceed on the basis that I have outlined.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that the next Labour Government may well cancel any contract that he enters into? Even if £1 billion has been spent on the contract four years hence, it would still be possible to cancel the contract and to save the other £9 billion. Of that sum, £5 billion represents the cost of the submarines and £5 billion the cost of upkeep, and use. If the contract were cancelled the country could make a tremendous saving.

Mr. Pym: It is fair to say that given the way things are going on the Opposition side of the House, the likelihood of a Labour Government in four years' time is not very great. However, it is true that a Government cannot bind their successors. Indeed, the previous Labour Government could not bind us. When we came to power we considered afresh all the factors germane to this decision. I have not the slightest doubt that an incoming Government—of whatever complexion or make-up—would adopt an equally fundamental and serious attitude towards the needs of this country in relation to defence.
There was great controversy in the early 1960s in relation to the Nassau agreement, but that agreement went through. Without controversy across the Floor of the House, we have continued with this crucial element in our defence capability throughout the last two decades. I have no doubt that an incoming Government, of whatever colour, would take another fundamental look at what is necessary and then decide what was best in the national interest.

Mr. Nelson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this major decision, which must be the ultimate guarantee of our nation's independence and security for a generation.
On the question of costing, will the Secretary of State confirm that it should be perfectly feasible to cover this percentage cost out of the defence budget, providing that it continues to grow, in


real terms, at the present rate of 3 per cent? As this commitment at present lasts only until 1984, does this not mean that our Government must have a longer-term commitment to constant real increases in the size of the defence budget?

Mr. Pym: There is a commitment to aim at an increase of 3 per cent. NATO-wide until 1985–86, and thereafter perhaps at a 1 per cent. increase. These figures and costings have been fitted into the defence budget on that basis. Of course, no one knows what will happen in the longer-term future, but that is the basis on which we have made our plans. The decision was taken in a normal way—in exactly the same way as the Polaris decision was reached. This will be fitted into the programme as a major new weapons system, like other new weapons systems, and there is nothing different or peculiar about it. It is part of our everyday long-term costing system.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House I shall put together the Questions on the two motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order 1980 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea (Interim Provisions) Orde 1980 be referred to a Standing Committtee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

CHILDREN'S BAND CONTEST (KIRKBY IN ASHFIELD)

Mr. Concannon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek your help and guidance as the custodian of the rules of the House. A number of hon. Members from North Nottinghamshire and surrounding areas are having great difficulty in trying to get a statement out of the Government about the incident that occurred in Ashfield on Sunday. That incident has caused great distress to many of our constituents and rumours about it are rife. Is there any way in which you, Mr. Speaker, can assist and indicate that a Minister from one of the Government

Departments—whether it is the DHSS or the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—will make a statement to the House?

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Member for the way in which he has submitted his point of order. I take very seriously my responsibilities to guard the rights of the House as best I can. I recommend the right hon. Gentleman to resort to his old habits and go through the usual channels on this matter. They might be more useful to him than I am.

HABEAS CORPUS

Mr. Frank Dobson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill for the better securing of individual liberty. The object of my suggested Bill would be achieved by strengthening the protection given by the law of habeas corpus.
There are those who would think that this is a matter best left to lawyers, but, just as it is said that war is too important to be left to generals, so I believe that the law on the liberties of the individual is too important to be left to lawyers. The law on habeas corpus provides that anyone who is detained by anyone can ask the Divisional Court to order the authority detaining him to bring him before the court and to give reasons for his detention. This has been regarded as a cornerstone of our individual liberty, but it has been severely eroded in recent years.
First, in the case of police detention of suspects, the Divisional Court has got into the habit of adjourning the hearing to give the police more time in which to respond. As a result, people have been kept in police custody, without there being any lawful right to hold them, for five days or more.
Secondly, in the case of the immigration service detaining alleged illegal immigrants, the courts have got into the habit of not exercising their power to go into the facts when there is a dispute between the individual detainee and the immigration service. Also, on those occasions when the courts have decided to go into the facts, they have ruled that the prisoner in question must prove that the immigration service is wrong, rather


than the other way around. As we know, that is the reversal of the normal presumption of innocence in English law.
My Bill proposes three things. First, provided the police or the other detaining authorities are given reasonable notice, the court cannot adjourn the hearing except with the leave of the individual concerned. Secondly, if there is any dispute over the facts, the courts will be obliged to inquire into that dispute and determine it. Thirdly, my Bill seeks to put the burden of proof on the detaining authorities rather than the prisoner. I hope that these proposals will commend themselves to the House and that the House will take as its example the proceedings which led to the passage of the original Habeas Corpus Act 1679, which went through the House without a single Division.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Frank Dobson, Mr. Alfred Dubs, Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk, Miss Joan Lestor, Mr. Clive Soley, Mr. A. W. Stallard, Mrs. Ann Taylor and Mr. John Tilley.

HABEAS CORPUS

Mr. Frank Dobson accordingly presented a Bill for the better securing of individual liberty: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 252].

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PLANNING AND LAND (No. 2) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 10

POWER TO DISPOSE OF LAND

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move amendment No. 190, in page 84, line 29, leave out clause 110.
When tabled on the policy of selling new town assets, Government spokesmen are apt to say in reply to almost any Opposition criticism that what they are doing is in accordance with their philosophy; or they will remark that there is a philosophical divide between the two sides of the House. The implication is that the Labour Party is against all sales of new town assets. The Government should be clear from the start that the Opposition are not opposed to the sale of new town assets per se. Nor are we against the investment of private capital in new towns.
In 1978–79, 22 per cent. of the new towns programme of industrial and commercial investment was privately financed. We expected that this figure would rise to about 50 per cent. in 1979–80. However, I believe that there is a divide between us about the Government's present policy on the sale of assets, and I shall return to that later in my speech. That policy is facilitated by this clause, and the amendment seeks to delete the whole clause, which is designed to facilitate the sale of new town industrial and commercial assets by corporations.
First, I want to examine the policy. The more that one looks at it the more one finds that it is a piece of financial lunacy. Secondly, it is of doubtful legality, as sales are occurring now. Thirdly, I shall attempt to show that it is highly damaging to the new towns. Lastly, it is ill-thought-out and, as a result, has become administratively confused.
I shall deal first with the financial aspect. Even if one believes that new town commercial and industrial assets


should be sold, it is surely little short of madness to do so now. The property market is in a depressed state, and the current high cost of borrowing means that potential investors will only offer, and in many cases can only afford, low prices. The advice of property experts is not to sell now but to wait for at least two years, when the situation may have improved. I should have thought that this Government, with their hopes for their economic policy, would give precisely the same advice. However, they propose to sell off assets at relatively low prices. Experience in one or two new towns indicates that that is unwise.
The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services attempted to reassure the Committee when we raised the wisdom of selling off assets in that way. He said:
It is interesting that the sales which have been made have tended to be made above the valuations which have been put upon the properties."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 29 April 1980; c. 618.]
For a moment many of us were persuaded by that remark, but the more one thinks about it the odder one finds it.
Who put those valuations on the properties? Whoever made those valuations must have seriously underestimated the values. [Interruption.] I do not know why Government Members are laughing. Anyone who has any knowledge of the property market knows that the only way to be absolutely sure of the marketable value of a property is to put a sample on the market and see what it fetches. The Minister's remark in Committee is in no way reassuring. The valuation of the properties was almost certainly too low, even taking into account the depressed state of the market. Property values can be finally worked out only once the market has been tested.
The Minister tried to reassure us that the total value of the properties proposed to be sold was a relatively small part of the disposals. However, we should put the matter in context. It is the Government's policy to encourage the sale not only of assets held by new town development corporations but of surplus property held by local Authorities and public corporations, but of surplus property held by the local authorities and public corporations. The nounced the disposal of £00 million of industrial and Commercial assets. Only

yesterday, the Minister of Transport told us that British Railways intend to dispose of hotels and other property. We are also told that Government Departments have been advised to look at the property that they hold with a view to disposing of that which they no longer require.
The Government may argue that they take good care to see that the properties are put on the market in a controlled way to ensure that the policy will not depress values to such a degree that the taxpayer gets a poor bargain. However, any confidence that I may have had in that hope was shaken by an article in The Guardian on 15 May, which read:
Minister's unfinished office gamble. Mr. Michael Heseltine, the Environment Secretary, faces the prospect of losing up to £400,000 of taxpayers' money by putting up for sale an unfinished Government office block on Merseyside.
I am told that the authority for that comes from Messrs. Debenham, Tewson and Chinnocks. That firm's spokesman is quoted in the same article as saying:
We do not expect the Government to make a profit on the deal. In fact, if we received an offer for about £600,000—£400,000 below the cash spent—it would be seriously considered.
If that sort of policy is being pursued by the Department of the Environment and the Property Services Agency, which is advising other Government Departments about the disposal of public assets, the House should be seriously concerned about approving a clause which will allow the Secretary of State to permit almost wholesale disposal of new town assets.
The second aspect of the sales policy that continues to disturb me, despite the Minister's assurances, is the doubtful legality of the sales taking place under present law. Section 18(1) of the New Towns Act 1965 states that new town development corporations may dispose of assets
as they consider expedient for securing the development of the new town in accordance with proposals approved by the Minister … or for purposes connected with the development of the new town
I do not believe that those conditions have been tested in the courts, but they throw considerable doubt on the legality of selling for purposes stated by a Department of the Environment spokesman,


who was quoted in The Guardian on 26 March as saying that
the Secretary of State asked the new town"—
in this case, Stevenage—
to undertake some further sales to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement and to reduce the role of the public sector in the new towns"—
That cannot be said to be
purposes connected with the development of the new town".
My interpretation of those words suggests that the current sales are of doubtful legality. Admittedly, the spokesman said that that was a "request" by the Department of the Environment to development corporations. However, I suggest that any development corporation that responded to such a request would be outside the law.

Mr. Martin Stevens: If land held by a development corporation was disposed of, fresh funds would then become available to the corporation, which would enable it to do things that it would otherwise not be able to do. Such action would, therefore, be legal.

Mr. Barnett: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Had he listened carefully to the earlier part of my speech, he would have heard me say that new town development corporations, with the consent of both sides of the House, have been disposing of assets in order to encourage development in the town. I would encourage the roll-over of assets. However, I am now talking about demands made by the Secretary of State in order to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement, which has little or nothing to do with the benefit of new towns.
Unfortunately, some new town development corporations have gone ahead with sales on the grounds that the request from the Department of the Environment to sell assets is sufficient proof for potential buyers, as one development corporation spokesman said. The Department of the Environment may indeed possess authority, but it would be hazardous to mistake that for prudence or legal sanctity.
4.30 pm
It is bad enough that the legal position has not been thoroughly checked, as is

evident from what has happened so far, but there is also a good deal of evidence coming forward that if the Department were given full authority to pursue the powers in the clause it would continue the sort of administrative muddle that has arisen from the ill-thought-out proposals that have come from Ministers at the head of the Department.
For example, I gather that a considerable problem has arisen over the renegotiation of leases of sitting tenants with the prospective purchasers of the freehold. That may have been sorted out in some cases, but the Minister ought to explain what the difficulties were and why sales that he wanted to see carried through were seriously delayed. It indicates a lack of foresight in respect of the transfer of leases to new purchasers and the conditions of the leases continuing  be observed.
I gather that another problem was never foreseen. I can only assume that the Secretary of State knew little or nothing about new towns if he failed to foresee the problem that would arise in connection with the large shopping centres in many new towns. Such centres—one is the Kingfisher shopping centre in Redditch, which is one of the places where the problem arose—are covered and include large alleyways, escalators and other public facilities that are part of the centre and within the freehold ownership of the new town.
If assets are sold one by one, who will repair the escalator when it breaks down? Who will sweep, keep clean and maintain the premises when they have been split into various bits and pieces? If the House is to pass the clause the Minister must tell us whether his Department has worked out proposals for proper management schemes after the legislation becomes law.
It is evident that Ministers have paid little or no attention to the staffing implications of the transfer. It will lead to a large number of redundancies among loyal servants of the new town development corporations who had every reason to foresee the prospect of jobs for some years to come as a consequence of the build-up of the assets for which they were responsible to a great degree.
That is why in earlier debates on the Bill I raised the whole issue of the "Crombie" code. I was interested to note


from The Guardian today that the trade union involved, NALGO, is considering the possibility of suing the Department on behalf of the officials concerned. There seems to be no doubt that, whatever the legalities of the situation, Ministers have behaved shabbily towards officials who have, in many cases, given a lifetime's service to the management of assets and whose service is being interrupted as a consequence of the statutory intervention contained in the Bill.
The proposals are also damaging to the new towns. If the assets are sold during the process of development, the new town development corporations will be divesting themselves of the opportunity to benefit from the future growth that they are creating. The older new towns have done that. Stevenage, Harlow and others have immensely valuable assets, which it is proposed to place on the market. It will be impossible for the newer new towns to create such assets and to benefit fully from the growth in their value that arises as a consequence of other development in the town.
I understand that Basildon has developed aggressive marketing and management policies, maintaining high rents to enable an advance factory programme to be sustained. The break-up of the industrial holdings of Basildon may result in undermining values through the corporation's resulting ignorance of overall market conditions. The high rent policy is vital in providing the wherewithal for Basildon to continue the development that it wants to carry out in order to extend and develop the commercial and industrial aspects of the town. Take away some of the assets and lower the rents and the consequence will be a serious interference with the possibility of that new town, and possibly many others, being able to complete its development satisfactorily.
However, there are even worse possible consequences. The private sector may lose confidence in a development corporation that has no assets—and presumably that will be the final result of the sales policy—but has to rely on Government finance to underwrite any failure in new development.
It is claimed with some justification that there is a philosophical divide on this issue between the two sides of the House. As far as I can make out from speeches

by Government spokesmen and others, the Conservative Party sees no role for the public ownership of land. I pass over the issue that we have raised many times, namely, the inevitable consequence of that in terms of the land and property speculation that arises when potentially valuable assets fall into private hands, particularly when the market is as seriously depressed as it is at present.
There is another issue of prime importance that is deeply felt in many new towns, not only by the residents and the development corporations but often by the industrial and commercial firms that are lessees of the corporations. They expect and get from the development corporations a standard of estate management that is almost unrivalled throughout the country. That is the strongest argument for retaining a large share of public involvement in the ownership of the freehold of these properties. We argued the issue at length in Committee, and I do not propose to detain the House, but it is an issue of fundamental importance which some of my hon. Friends may wish to develop.
If the clause is passed, new towns will not just be the sale of the century on their own but will be part of an enormous sale of the century to private interests. The first consequence will be a further depression in the property market, which is already seriously depressed. From start to finish, the whole scheme is ill-thought-out and ill-planned. It serves the illusory objective of lowering the public sector borrowing requirement, though no one has yet been able to explain to me the relevance of a transfer of such assets from one pocket to another. It is highly damaging to the new towns and destructive of the taxpayer's interests—and we are talking about assets owned by the taxpayer.
The Government are inclined to assume from time to time that the taxpayer wants his money back. Speaking as a taxpayer, I want to see my money invested in a first class investment—and that investment is to be found in our new towns.

Mr. J. Grimond: As one who has tried to follow the Committee proceedings of the Bill from the written words and who has attended a certain number of debates in the House and even read Hansard


resulting from them, I find myself in a greater and greater muddle. I understand that the Government are in favour of local authorities being allowed greater freedom. Many of their policies do not seem to achieve that object, but I assume that it is the Government's aim to provide greater freedom, coupled apparently with the belief that they should naturally exercise some control over the expenditure of public money from the central Exchequer. We must look at all aspects of the Bill with these two matters in mind.
This clause refers back to clause 101, which refers back to schedule 19. I hope that the drafting of Bills can be slightly improved for the benefit of people such as myself who find it difficult to follow. Part V of schedule 19 says
Section 74A of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (no local authority in Scotland to dispose of certain interests in land without the Secretary of State's consent) shall cease to have effect.
This will apparently enable local authorities in Scotland, in an indirect way, to have more control over the disposal of land than before. I understand that the clause applies not only to new towns but to local authorities and commissions and corporations. I suspect that many commissions and corporations, as well as new towns and local authorities, hold land. I am in favour of giving local authorities power to dispose of land if they no longer have any use for it. One notices, going around the country, that the railways, for instance, still hold immense pockets of land that they are not developing.
All hon. Members, I presume, would be in favour of the railways disposing of land. Will the clause allow that to happen? I understand that it increases the power of local authorities, quite apart from corporations or commissions, to dispose of land. It appears that under the clause they can do so—subject to directions by the Secretary of Sate. If so, what sort of directions does the Secretary of State think will be given? If it is a good idea to dispose of land that is no longer wanted, the question arises of whether this matter is connected with the public service borrowing requirement. I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett), who moved the amendment. It seems that the Gov

ernment constantly confuse revenue and capital as though selling off capital assets will enable them to show better results on the annual outturn of the PSBR. This is economic nonsense. I see the Minister nodding his head.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Marcus Fox): I am mystified purely because I think that the right hon. Gentleman is using the old Bill and not the amended Bill. He has quoted a clause that is not relevant to the debate.

Mr. Grimond: That is probably so, but I should be interested to hear some explanation of what we are doing. I confess that I am somewhat confused. It appears to me that we are perpetrating what used to be known as a long-term fraud—selling off assets and counting that as revenue.
Why does clause 110(3) state
The power shall not be exercised so as to dispose of land by way of mortgage (or in Scotland, standard security) or charge"?

Mr. Fox: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman. He has pointed out an error on page 84. Clause 110 mentions section 101. It should be section 109.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: The right hon. Gentleman knows the Bill better than the Government.

Mr. Grimond: I would not go so far as to say that. Anyone who understands this Bill must be a senior wrangler of the first water.
The Government owe the House some explanation about why they should interfere, if they believe in greater freedom for commissions and local authorities, in the handling of their land and why they should insist upon giving directions if there is an intention to get rid of the land.
Local authorities are now probably getting into all sorts of areas that are not really their business. One of these issues may be the ownership of land. In my reference to local authorities, I include commissions for new towns, and so forth. It would be much better if the Government were to lay down what are the functions of local authorities and leave them to get on with their own business.
The main fault of the Bill is that it leaves local authorities in a great grey


area, with the Government saying that they intend to interfere here, there and everywhere. That is not the right way to deal with commissions, new towns and local authorities. I would much prefer the Government to inform the local authorities of the sphere of authority within which they can do as they like and dispose of land, or keep it, as they choose. Once outside that area, it would be the Government's sphere. I fear that the Bill is a confusion between the two.
It is not a good way of running the government of the country for the Government to attempt to involve local authorities in the management of major economic policy. They believe that if local authorities sell off bits of land, this will make some difference to the public sector borrowing requirement. That is a wrong motive. I hope that the Government will explain why they are pursuing that policy. If it is not their policy, I hope they will repudiate it.

Mr. John Evans: I support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) in moving amendment No. 190. I take this opportunity of paying tribute to my hon. Friend for his splendid work for new towns while he was in Government. He was recognised throughout the country, especially in the new towns movement, as a man of tremendous integrity who had the best interests of the new towns at heart and who worked well with the new town corporations. That is certainly true of the new town corporation in my constituency, Warrington.
It is generally accepted in the House and among the political parties that the Bill is an obnoxious and unnecessary attack on local democracy. It is obvious that the Government Front Bench have little experience of local government, otherwise they would not have attempted to put this sort of Bill through the House. My view is that there is a strong hope on the Government Benches, even among Ministers and Cabinet Ministers, that with good fortune and careful planning the Bill will fail through lack of parliamentary time and disappear into the oblivion that it deserves. It is a dictatorial Bill.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). It is odd that Whitehall should attempt to dictate to local government what it

should or should not do, without trying to lay down precisely in what areas local government should operate. It would be to the benefit of local government if, for the next five or 10 years there could be a hiatus in legislation relating to local authorities, to allow them to get on with their work. Increasingly, local authorities make a better job of running their affairs than Tory Governments make of running the affairs of the country.
In this part of the Bill we are back to the rip-off principle. As in so many areas since they took office, the Government are determined to flog off public assets for the benefit of their political, industrial and commercial friends and to raise money to give substantial tax cuts to the group of gentlemen to whom they intend to flog off the assets. If we did not have such a politically prostituted press there would be banner headlines explaining to the people the almighty rip-off that is taking place under this Government as they get their money-grubbing hands on the benefits that have been built up over the years.
Warrington new town is one of the most successful new towns in the country. It is a third-generation new town, and it is growing apace. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich said, there is no dogmatism about how assets should be controlled and managed. Warrington new town has a successful and well planned mixture of excellent private and public housing. It has had considerable success in building industrial estates and leisure facilities. In the last three or four years the new town has attracted a considerable number of jobs to the area. It is no exaggeration to say that it was the fastest-growing area in the North-West. Unfortunately, like the rest of the North-West and the rest of the country under the Conservative Government, it is coming to a dead stop. Little industry is now being attracted to it, although, fortunately, development of the housing and industrial sectors is continuing. That means that construction workers are being offered work.
Vast areas of the new town have been landscaped at public expense. Whatever other virtues the Warrington area has—and it has many—it is rather flat and featureless, and considerable expenditure is required. I went round my constituency on Saturday, visiting three surgeries in different parts of the new town. I


was impressed by the landscaping, which has a beneficial effect on the beauty of the place and on the well-being of the inhabitants.
Unfortunately, the new town is approaching a difficult period. The new town corporation does not have a dogmatic approach to the way in which it finances industrial development. It made land available to many firms so that they could build their own units and factories. The corporation also built units, which it let to firms. Much private capital has been used, in conjunction with new town finances, to build factory units. The corporation has been happy to sell the units to firms that decide to establish their future in Warrington. The money has been used for further development. The roll-over principle is well established in Warrington new town.
The corporation is so undogmatic in its approach that when it built New Town House it promptly sold the freehold to an insurance company, leased it back and used the capital to develop further. That is an illustration of the undogmatic approach of new towns in general, and Warrington new town in particular. Unfortunately, that dogmatic approach will be scrapped by the Bill because the Secretary of State insists that assets are to be sold without regard to the well-being of the new towns. Assets are to be sold whether or not the new town corporations believe that that is in the interests of the new towns and their people.
The Warrington borough council has a stake in the issue. Eventually, the new town will be folded up and the assets will be passed to the borough council. The borough council has also put a substantial amount into the development of the new town. The residents had to put up with considerable inconvenience while major building work took place. The benefits will be reaped by the Secretary of State, who is ordering that assets be flogged for the benefit of the wealthy, who will receive further tax cuts.
One criticism that is levelled at Warrington new town is that it has built more warehouses than manufacturing units. That is understandable, because the new town is ideally situated at the junction of the M6 and the M62. Warehousing industry is naturally attracted to the area. It is not fair to say that the

new town corporation has excluded manufacturing industry—it has not. When it received firm offers from the distributive industry to create jobs it took up the offers. At the same time, the corporation ensured that there was a balance of jobs.
That will be the last consideration under the Bill. The land will be flogged to the first bidder. If that firm wants to build only vast warehouses, using acres of valuable land and employing only a handful of people, that will be it. The attitude will be that it is the money that counts. That is not in accordance with the spirit of new town development. The idea is that people should be attracted to an area, schools and social facilities should be provided and jobs created. I suspect that with the Government's approach fewer jobs will be created.
The Chairman of the new town, Mr. Jim Mason, has done a splendid job in the last three or four years. He is worried. He accepts that if the Government force him to sell off land it will have to go, but he is worried about who will accept the responsibility for the maintenance of the landscaping programme. Landscaping is not cheap. The Minister should consider that.
I refer the Minister to the scheme at the Birchwood science park. It is one of the most imaginative schemes in the country. The local authority has taken a large area of land close to the headquarters of the Atomic Energy Authority and the premises of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. and used it to attract science-based industries. A large area has been landscaped to attract American, Swedish, German, Japanese and British companies to the site. The firms have agreed that the new town corporation should maintain the landscaping and that they will pay half of the cost of maintenance.
That scheme is imaginative and worth while, but one suspects that if individual companies are flogged off, the last thing that they will wish to concern themselves with is the overall excellence of the landscaping scheme. They will let it go. In this context we have the right to ask the Minister who will take on that responsibility and who will pay.
The Government consistently try to get across the legend that they are concerned about small businesses. They are anything but concerned about small


businesses. In this area the new town corporations have played a valiant role in building many small units to enable new and small businesses to be set up. How on earth can small business men—in some instances accepting units as small as a garage in Warrington—if the Government's philosophy carries the day, be helped under this clause by the new town corporations, which will be charged with flogging off the assets as quickly as possible for the benefit of the Secretary of State?
5 pm
The Minister had better give us an answer. How will the Government square their proclaimed assistance to small businesses with their taking steps to drive the new town corporations—an important element in the industrial scheme of things—out of this market altogether? This is a bad Bill and I hope that it will disappear, but if it does not the Minister has a duty to put right the wrongs in the Bill, if not in this House, certainly with amendments in another place.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I was slow to rise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I hoped that this might be one of the rare parts of the Bill to inspire a defence by a Conservative Back Bencher. We have been through clause after clause without a word of support for the Bill coming from hon. Members below the Gangway or behind the Treasury Bench. There are no coherent words of support from the Treasury Bench itself. I had hoped that this provision for the selling off of public assets to private individuals would inspire a little enthusiasm on the Government Back Benches. If even this part of the Bill cannot enthuse hon. Gentlemen from the shires and the City the Bill is in extremely bad case.
It deserves to be, not because of the matters that we discussed last week and the week before that but because of the issues that we are discussing today. My Hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) moved, in his normally lucid and careful way, an amendment to secure the deletion of clause 110. It is necessary to make quite clear that the view of the Opposition that clause 110 should be deleted is related in part to the provisions of clause 109, which, because of the selec

tion, we have not been able to debate. I mention that in passing in order to remain within the rules of order.
You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as will the House, that clause 109 is one of the enabling clauses that characterises the Bill. It allows the Secretary of State of the day to do what he likes, when he likes and how he likes. It allows him in this specific particular to:
direct a development corporation or the Commission to pay to him … such sum as is so specified.
Constitutional lawyers among Conservative Members—if such animals exist—will regard that as a rather wide power to give to a Secretary of State. That power gives him the right, as he wants and when he wants, to oblige new town development corporations or the commission to provide him with money.
Clause 110, which my hon. Friend seeks to delete, is simply and necessarily a way in which the new towns can provide money which, if clause 109 passes into law, they will be required to pay to the Secretary of State. Of course, when the Secretary of State makes his exacting demands the only way in which the new towns will be able to meet them is by selling off their assets, and in particular by selling off their land.
I make it absolutely clear, without any equivocation or doubt, that the Opposition are completely opposed to the disposal of new town assets and new town land in that way. We are opposed, in part, because we echo the views of the Town and Country Planning Association. That is a non-party organisation whose letter to me this morning included the name of a distinguished ex-Conservative Member of Parliament who is the Association's treasurer.
That organisation holds the view that to oblige new towns to dispose of land in this way is contrary to the interests of the new towns. It believes that it is contrary to the spirit and meaning of the New Towns Act and it regards it as an improvement and foolish use of national resources. To those of us more particularly who believe in the concept of new towns and think that they have things to offer the country, this provision prejudices the argument and discussion that must continue about how new town assets are to be used and disposed of.
The Bill enables those things to happen for reasons that the most objective observer—indeed, any objective observer—will regard as short-term and shortsighted. Before I turn to the Government's reasons I wish to say a word about something that has already happened, namely, the instruction of the Secretary of State—for it was no less—that the new towns should find £120 million for him during this financial year. I hope that the Under-Secretary, unlike some of his departmental colleagues, will give us precise answers about that instruction.
There is no doubt that the chairmen of the new town corporations believed that the Secretary of State was telling them that he had the power to require them to provide that £120 million. That was the impression that he gave. Whether it was malice or incompetence the Under-Secretary can tell us when he replies, but that was certainly what the Secretary of State implied when he met the new towns chairmen.
When those chairmen discussed the matter with their legal advisers they discovered that the Secretary of State did not have any such power. I raised this issue in the House in what we shall call the "Stevenage debate" on 26 March when another Under-Secretary, uniquely in my experience during discussion of a Bill dealing with new town finance, said that if I wanted an answer I had better put down a question and he would then tell me the powers under which the Secretary of State was operating.
When I raised that matter in Committee I received a letter from the Minister for Housing and Construction which at best could be described as ambiguous, describing the powers under which the Secretary of State was operating. I think that the Secretary of State would do us a favour if the Under-Secretary were allowed to say that there are no powers which oblige the Secretary of State to raise £120 million this year. The Secretary of State can huff and puff, but he cannot require that money to be spent. If he gave the impression that it was within his power to require that, it was a mistaken impression and until this Bill passes into law there is no obligation upon new towns to sell assets which they believe it is against their interests to sell.
The present law requires the new towns to operate in a way which they believe to be in their own interests. If they did not believe that it was in their interests to sell their assets they would be behaving illegally if they were to sell them irrespective of what the Secretary of State might do, what he might threaten, and no matter the extent of his bullying.
The first thing that the Under-Secretary must do is to make the position clear about the sale of assets this year. Of course, I accept that if the Bill passes into law with clauses 109 and 110 in it the Secretary of State has the right to require new towns to provide him with money. Clause 110 offers the new towns an opportunity to realise assets which will allow them to spend money in a way required by the Secretary of State.
I also accept, in the sense that I acknowledge it as a fact, that the Secretary of State has already made it clear that next year he wishes the new towns to provide him with£200 million. I hope that the Under-Secretary will spare us the embarrassment of telling us that that has to be done as a sacrifice to the public sector borrowing requirement. The rules today do not allow us to pursue in any detail the particular shibboleth of the PSBR which the Government intone on every occasion as if it were an excuse for every policy no matter how damaging or disastrous. But on this specific point it is clear that if all that the Government wish is the realisation of assets in order to reduce the PSRB, what I call the "Stevenage solution" would have done that exactly. The Stevenage solution was that assets could have been disposed of by a holding company. That would have provided the funds which the Secretary of State wanted to enable him to make notional—for that is all that it would have amounted to—adjustments to the PSBR, and the PSBR requirement would have been met. However, the Government resisted and rejected that solution.
We are driven to the conclusion that the Government wish to dispose of these assets for the simple, primitive and dogmatic reason that they believe that land in the new towns should be held by private individuals and corporations rather than by the new towns themselves. Let me make my view on that absolutely clear. We are absolutely opposed to the realisation of £200 million worth of new


town assets next year, for a variety of reasons. The first relates to a point made by my hon. Friend when introducing the amendment, which seemed to cause some amusement among the Government Benches. I am glad that the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services, who was the principal purveyor of counterfeited mirth on that occasion, has now returned. There was some amusement when my hon. Friend said that if the corporations were to sell in this way they would be selling in disadvantageous circumstances.
I do not know how Ministers can argue with that simple contention. If it is known that the new towns must sell £200 million worth of their assets, because that is the penalty, pain and payment which the Secretary of State exacts from them, the potential buyers must know that they are operating in a buyer's market. It is not a free market, a free sale and a free purchase, but rather a market in which the new towns, like it or not, must sell at the best price they can because they must raise the money which the Secretary of State requires. In those circumstances, they will, of course, sell disadvantageously to themselves, their citizens and to those on whose behalf those assets ought to be sold. We are, therefore, opposed to sales in those circumstances, because the new towns will be required to sell their assets at a time when they could not realise their proper value.
Secondly, if the new towns are to be used as an area from which money can be obtained to reduce the PSBR, public expenditure or the public holding of land whenever the Secretary of State of the day has the will to do so, and if the sum is to be £200 million a year—let alone accelerate at a speed represented by £120 million one year and £200 million the next—the new towns will be denuded completely of their land holdings, as a result of which land which should be in their possession for development will pass into private hands.
Thirdly, the principle of selling is in total opposition to all that the new towns stand for and all which in the past has been the bipartisan attitude to new towns and new town assets. Let me give two simple examples. The 1946 Act—the foundation Act—was precise in saying that on the maturity of the new towns, new town assets should be transferred to

local authorities. The 1959 Act, passed by a Conservative Government, established the Commission for the New Towns, but was specific in saying that the duty of the commission in holding assets and land was to cater for the convenience, welfare and well-being of people residing, working and carrying on business in the new towns. The new town assets in which the State, the community and the people have made substantial investment have for 30 years been thought of by both parties as assets held in trust for the people of the new towns. Now, for the first time, the Government are changing their minds and are saying that these assets must be used in some other way.
Relying on my experience in Committee, I say that it may be that the Minister will say "But selling these assets might just turn out to be in the interests of the people of the new towns". My hon. Friend dealt with that argument precisely and exactly and I simply echo his words. We are not saying that when a new town corporation wants to sell land to roll over, to produce some money or to provide an asset which in its judgment can help the new towns, it should be prevented from doing so. Our complaint is that the new town corporations should be required to cash these land assets and to pay the money to the Government without any thought as to whether it is in the interests of the new towns. There is no question but that such sales could be made if they were in the interests of the new towns. However, the sales are to be made first, and the consequences for the new towns discovered afterwards. It is that to which we particularly object.
If the Minister persists in supporting clause 110, we shall vote against it. But before we do so, I hope that he will answer some specific questions about how he envisages that the sales of these new town assets will turn out.
5.15 pm
I think that it was the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services who on one occasion described in terms which I am sure are moving to all local Conservative parties the groups of small business men who were coming together to acquire these assets in order to keep their ownership within the new towns. I notice that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells),


speaking during the debate on the Stevenage Development Authority Bill, said something quite different—
The problem in Stevenage is that we have been trying to dispose of large lumps of terrace shops or terrace factories …The leaseholders of those shops were not able, or found it difficult, to bid for the whole block."—[Official Report, 26 March 1980; Vol. 980, c. 1556.]
As a result of that, the hon. Gentleman went on to say, the blocks which the Government were requiring to be sold off were being bought by developers and speculators who were then making a profit as they sold the shops, factories and plots of land to the burghers of the new towns.
I hope that the Minister will tell us all that he can about the sort of people who in these days of high interest rates, shortage of funds and low industrial activity can buy these new town assets or can come forward with offers to buy. My suspicion is that they are not residents of the area coming together in some sort of co-operative but, rather, developers who hope to make a second profit. If that is the case, that compounds the disgrace.
I want to say something else which Ministers and the developers should understand. There is a possibility that £120 million worth of assets this year, £200 million next year and heaven knows how much the year after will be sold to those who are willing to put up the money and that they will hold on to the land until 1983–84. There is the possibility that that land will still be in their possession at that time, even though it will be needed for socially important developments by the new towns or their local authorities. Those developers had better not expect that they can then sell back the land to a new town, its local authority or to the Government at a massive profit. At least, they had better not expect that they will be able to do so when a Labour Government are elected—[HON. MEMBERS: "When will that be?"] If ésprit de corps, élan and all the other things which are supposed to hold parties together are taken into consideration, it will be very soon indeed.
I return to my original point, and I shall be unusually provocative in the hope that we shall get one Conservative Back Bencher to break the routine which has endured during the entire proceed

ings on the Bill and say a word of approval, at least about this part of it. We are unanimous that the assets which have been brought together under the aegis of the new towns were brought together for the benefit of the community. That means that their value ought to extend and accrue in community ownership. The idea that they are to be sold in this way is more than short-sighted. It has absolutely no economic or legitimate financial justification. It is a demonstration of the strange belief on the Conservative Benches that in any circumstances it is better for an asset to be in private hands than in public hands. I understate my position by saying that that is not a view that I share. If the Under-Secretary persists in his view, we shall divide the House against him.

Mr. Stanley Newens: I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett). As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Spark-brook (Mr. Hattersley) said, it is significant that not one Conservative Back Bencher has sought to justify the clause.
As has been pointed out on many occasions, a number of those who represent new towns are aware of some of the criticisms that have been made—some of which have been voiced by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells), who is not in his place today. The Government are so hell-bent on their doctrinaire commitment to reviving the principle of private ownership of commercial and industrial properties in general that they are not prepared to consider any of the arguments or to consider the damage that will be done when the assets are sold.
Several months ago, when I introduced the Stevenage Development Authority Bill, we heard Ministers rejecting out of hand the principle of local authority purchase of commercial and industrial assets. That represented a considerable shift of opinion from that which prevailed when the Letchworth Garden City Corporation Bill was introduced in 1962. Although I recognise that there has been a considerable shift to the right on the Conservative Benches, it is extremely important that we, on the Labour side of the House, should once again place on record our utter condemnation of the misguided policy of selling new town assets.
A number of my hon. Friends have pointed out that the original concept of the New Towns Act 1946 was that assets should be transferred to local authorities on the completion of the towns. There were good reasons for that, and those reasons remain. It is only right that the inhabitants of a new town should be able to benefit by the increase in value of the assets sited in their town. I set out that argument at length when I introduced the Stevenage Development Authority Bill. It was never the intention of those who sought to formulate Labour Party policy on new towns—and I have been associated with that issue for more than 20 years—that the assets should be taken over locally without any return to the national Exchequer. It was never suggested that the taxpayer should be made to subsidise those fortunate enough to reside within the new towns when they came of age. The argument that I anticipate may be advanced from the Conservative Front Bench falls on ground that is not contested.
There was never any intention by those who helped to formulate Labour Party policy on new towns to take a doctrinaire stand against all sales, in any circumstances whatever. It is important that I make that point. This is a completely different matter from facilitating, as this clause facilitates—and as the Secretary of State's statement last year indicated it was his intention to facilitate—the sale of new town assets en masse, carried out without in any way being in the interests of new town inhabitants or the new town programme as a whole, but to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement. Such a policy is wrong. Not only is it misconceived for those who live in new towns, but it is equally misconceived for the taxpayers as a whole.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich pointed out, it is clear that such sales in the depressed state of the market are likely to take place at depressed values. In the face of continuing inflation the inevitable increase in the monetary value of the assets will be greater That increase will be transferred to organisations that have not contributed to the growth of the new town.
The clause is a licence for asset stripping and for the transfer of wealth to those who speculate, rather than to those who seek to create the wealth. Sales of

assets, especially in those towns that have, until recently, been in the ownership of the development corporations, have been extremely limited. They would have been limited even if the corporations in Harlow and Stevenage had not suspended them. In Harlow, apart from a block of small factory units, few sales have taken place. There appears to be no real interest in the blocks in the town centre. From my inquiries I have found that a similar state of affairs prevails in a number of other new towns. Therefore, I conclude that prices will be depressed and the assets may be sold below their true economic value.
Even so, such prices may not be within the reach of the occupiers, many of whom have expressed considerable concern because they are industrialists who are feeling the full effects of the present economic depression. Many of them have expressed concern that their properties may be sold over their heads—and it is the intention that they should be, if necessary. That concern has been expressed especially by small business men, whose premises frequently form part of a block that it is policy to put up for sale as a single unit.
On a number of occasions Government spokesmen have suggested that small business men should form a consortium to buy a block of units. I put that suggestion to a number of tenants in Harlow when they came to see me. They discovered that not all of the other tenants were prepared to buy. Even if they had been prepared to buy, and even if they had been credit-worthy and been able to raise the necessary finance to put in a bid, there was no certainty that it would be accepted. It is important to say that sales are not necessarily to the owner-occupiers, but to the highest bidder.
In some of the sales that have already taken place assets have been disposed of over the heads of the people who occupy the premises. The possibility that premises will be sold over the heads of occupiers concerns not only small business men but larger tenants, who in many cases are industrialists employing a large number of workers. Therefore, the policy of sale is of concern not only to those tenants, but to their employees. Many people in the new towns have already expressed their worries to their Members of Parliament, not only to me in my new town, but to Conservative


hon. Members, who could have told us about that if only they had been in their places to take part in the debate.
That illustrates the basic point that I am seeking to make—that these sales may be, and frequently will be, in direct contradiction to the public interest in the new towns. This is certainly the case where a property is sold regardless of the effect on employment, and where employment opportunities are destroyed.
In my own town, the Harlow development corporation has always considered, before it has let an industrial property, what the effect would be on employment within the town. That will not be a matter of consideration in sales that are enforced under the clause. It will not be a consideration that will be taken into account by those who buy and later seek to sell those properties. We should recognise, therefore, that what the Government are doing is directly against the interests of the people in the new towns. It represents a very serious blow to their future.
5.30 pm
In a number of other ways the decision represents something about which all new town residents must be concerned. The clause will deprive the local authority of the possibility of using the return from profitable assets to offset the losses on other assets, which presumably will eventually be left in the ownership of the local authority.
I hope that the Minister will not dodge the question that I am about to put to him. What is to happen to the assets that are not sold? The Government have announced that they intend to wind up the New Towns Commission, so the assets cannot remain with that body. In those circumstances, is it proposed to foist loss-making assets, such as car parks, on to the local authorities? If that is the position, we should have it clearly stated so that local authorities may know what they are expected to face.
Some local authorities in the new towns have already experienced problems with houses that have been transferred to them—houses which in many cases require substantial repairs, and on which discussion of the settlement is still outstanding. I do not believe that local authorities representing new towns will be prepared to

accept on the rates responsibility for loss-making assets. Accordingly, something must be said on this subject.
By facilitating the sale of these assets the Government will leave a legacy of headaches for future local authorities and future Governments. The attitude of the new towns is clear, and I believe that the attitude of the taxpayer as a whole ought to be clear. The clause is net in the interests either of the new towns or of the tax-paying public as a whole. I hope, therefore, that it will be rejected.
I have, of course, no power whatever to say anything about what a future Labour Government will do, but many of us who are concerned with these matters believe that prospective buyers of properties should recognise that a future Government may have to take steps to give local authorities in new towns the opportunity to acquire some of those assets which the present Government are seeking to sell off. In making their purchases, people ought to bear that very much in mind.
The clause is utterly opposed to the original aims of the new town movement, and therefore I entirely and wholeheartedly support the amendment, which is designed to delete the clause.

Mr. Giles Radice: I support my hon. Friends in their amendment. I have in my constituency the new town of Washington, which was designated by a Conservative Government in 1964 and developed under a Labour Government. It has been a great success. In that period, 15,000 new jobs have been created and a similar number of new houses, together with a completely new environment. Those who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett), have been to Washington, know what a success it has been. That achievement was recently recognised by the Government, when they extended the life of Washington new town until 1985.
But it is Washington new town and the community as a whole that are now being penalised for their success and their achievements by the Government's policy of selling off assets. Washington new town was forced last year to sell off assets to the value of £2½ million at the request of the Secretary of State, and I understand that the figure for this year


is £5 million. So far, it has sold off factories on the Wear estate and the Crowther estate. This year, it is selling further factories on the Parsons estate. It is also selling office sites in the new town centre.
An interesting point about these sales is that buyers have wanted a share of the profits, but they have not wanted the freehold. The reason for that is that they have not wanted to manage the properties, because they know very well that the new towns are the experts at managing industrial sites and town centres. That is why these buyers have not wanted anything more than a share of the proceeds.
If it is possible—but highly damaging—to sell off assets on the scale so far without destroying the fabric of a new town, it is certainly not possible to go any further. What is so worrying for those who represent new towns, live in new towns or work for new towns, is that they know very well that this is only the beginning and that the position will get very much worse. The Government's policy will be at the expense of new town development—development which has been promised for Washington by the Government. It will be at the expense of new town inhabitants, and it will be at the expense of the community as a whole.
It is a highly doctrinaire step, which is wrong in principle and will be highly damaging in practice. I shall be delighted to join my hon. Friends in voting for the amendment and against the principle of selling off assets.

Mr. Fox: I have listened with great interest to Labour Members on the subject of new towns. One could be led to believe that, since their inception in the 1940s, somehow nothing has changed, and that this concept of new towns is one that we have to live with for ever more.
The first generation of new towns met a post-war need, with particular attention to the congestion in London. The second generation of new towns, as well as doing that, concentrated on growth centres for industry in development areas. The third generation of new towns was more concerned with the stimulation of

economic growth in the context of regional strategies.
In the Bill, we are introducing a new dimension to the concept of new towns. We make no apology for doing that. We made no apology for it in Committee. [Interruption.] The fact that the changes may not be to the liking of Labour Members does not necessarily make them bad. Indeed, Conservative Members may think that that is something in their favour.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) asked me about the Secretary of State's instruction to sell. My right hon. Friend made it clear that it was necessary to reduce net public expenditure. This could be done either by reducing the level of expenditure on new capital investment or by the new towns selling assets and thus raising the necessary finance.
The development corporations agreed to follow the second course. Any sales by a development corporation have to be for purposes which the corporation regards as being expedient for the development of the town. The development corporations are not as naive as the right hon. Gentleman would have us believe. All the general consents for sales issued by the Department of the Environment have stressed the need for development corporations to satisfy themselves as to their powers. In Committee I said that there were certain doubts in some people's minds. I accept what the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) said about limitations in terms of the 1965 Act. Of course there are limitations on what development corporations and the commission can do. We are introducing this clause in order to extend their powers.

Mr. Newens: The Under-Secretary of State said that everything was done to stress to local authorites that they should act within their powers. What stress was placed on the matter by the Secretary of State for the Environment when he made his original statement to the new town chairmen? As I understand, no stress was placed at that stage. It was not until the matter was raised by Stevenage, Harlow and other new towns that any steps were taken. The Under-Secretary of State even asked my right hon. Friend to table a parliamentary question because he did not know the answer.

Mr. Fox: The hon. Gentleman should listen more carefully. I repeated what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at that time. I shall not repeat it again. He did not go any further than the powers that are contained in the 1965 Act. The powers that we are now taking will remove those limitations.
The right hon. Member for Spark-brook put forward the Stevenage solution as being the ideal and as meeting the Government's requirements. But he does not recognise that borrowing by local government is as much a part of the public sector borrowing requirement as borrowing by central Government. The Stevenage Development Authority Bill would not have done anything to reduce the PSBR.

Mr. Guy Barnett: So what?

Mr. Fox: The hon. Gentleman says "So what?"
I shall turn now to our policy. Government policy is applicable, in terms of new towns, as it is applicable in other matters. The funding by the Exchequer to the national loans fund is of importance in our overall strategy. No one can say that the new towns have not received a fair share of money over the last 34 years. The new towns borrowed a total of £3,204 million, and a clause in this Bill was removed and made into another Bill to lift the limit on their borrowing. That is evidence that the Government envisage the continuation of new towns as an important factor in the life of this country. I make no apology for emphasising that the Government's policy of reducing the role of the public sector in the development of new towns is a vital factor, and hence, under this clause, our extension of the powers available to new town development corporations and the commission to fund part of their new development.
Soon after our return to power in May 1979 we inaugurated a general consent enabling new town tenants to buy their own homes.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: A fat lot of good.

Mr. Fox: The right hon. Gentleman says "A fat lot of good". I understand his views about the sale of council houses, and he understands our views.

But 8,000 council houses have been sold, or are in the process of being sold, and he should perhaps eat his words. There are 8,000 owners in new towns who are happy with our proposals. There is a divide between the parties on this issue that we do not deny. We want the private sector to increase its involvement, and we believe that it will provide an impetus and a new enthusiasm. It will also result in a better use of assets. They will not be locked away as they have been, and they will be used for other purposes. I am sure that that is not acceptable to Labour Members. In the long term, they may not always be used within the new town areas.
I repeat that the national interest is a factor. When the population projections showed a reduction, the previous Government made a major reappraisal of the new towns programme between 1976 and 1977. We are now doing that as a financial reappraisal. As the hon. Member for Greenwich suggested, there can be no question but that we are doing so during a period when prices are depressed. We cannot accept that we are putting these properties on to the market at a time when we shall not be getting the best possible price. In Committee, we made it clear that, even if we took the most optimistic view, only one-tenth of the property market would be accounted for by new town sales.

Mr. W. Benyon: Will my hog. Friend give an assurance that, particularly in the case of third-generation new towns, the corporations will not be forced to sell against the best commercial advice—that is, before reasonable maturity has been reached?

Mr. Fox: Yes, I can give that assurance. The decision as to which properties are sold rests with the individual development corporations. The Bill gives specific powers to the Secretary of State to take action if he finds that, because of the amount of property being put on the market, prices are depressed. It is right that he should have that power.

Mr. Hattersley: May I ask the Under-Secretary of State to consider clause 109 as well as clause 110? If the Government are so determined to raise money in this way, and if, therefore, the Secretary of State stipulates, under clause 109, that a specific new town must provide £5 million,


£6 million or £10 million, what will the Secretary of State do if it is discovered that a new town cannot provide that money without selling land against the best commercial interests?

Mr. Fox: Contrary to the views of some Labour Members, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is a sensible, responsible Minister. I am certain that, if what the right hon. Gentleman postulates were to be the case, we would consider carefully whether those figures should be adhered to. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is always giving his views and opinions. I gave him an answer, but I am intrigued by his quoting from the debate on the Stevenage Development Authority Bill. He should be careful. I read it deliberately before this debate. He said:
it is our clear conviction that that surplus should be held for the benefit of the people of the area."—[Official Report, 26 March 1980; Vol. 980, c. 1557.]
That is where the difference between the Government and the Opposition lies. We disagree with his conclusion. The Government believe that these assets belong to the nation as a whole—to the people who put in the money in the first place. The assets thus built up belong to the community, and not to the individual local authority or the people who live in the area.

Mr. Mikardo: We get the money.

Mr. Fox: In his time, the hon. Gentleman has been a good entrepeneur. He understands the workings of the market, what money is, and how by investment it can create more wealth.

Mr. Mikardo: That statement is as untrue as the statement made previously by the Minister. I have never been an entrepreneur.

Mr. Fox: In that case, I withdraw what I said and simply say that the hon. Gentleman has had business involvements.
The hon. Member for Greenwich talked about repayment. As I made clear in the debate on new clause 20, the Government do not believe that the need for the Crombie code is as great today as it was in the past, since good management terms are now available for most groups of employees.
I understand that the provision relating to the Land Authority for Wales, about which the hon. Gentleman asked me in our previous debate, is necessary to remove doubts as to whether there is any legal power to pay compensation to the staff of the authority, should that be necessary. The taking of this power does not commit Ministers to the form that such compensation should take. This would be considered as and when it became necessary. The Government's view is that there is no such deficiency in the powers relating to new town staff because, as I said previously, management terms are already available. The Greater London Housing Compensation Regulations 1980, which follow the Crombie code, were made in the light of a specific commitment by the previous Labour Government and were accepted by this Government when they came into office. I repeat that we do not believe that our proposals will mean redundancies of the kind that have been mentioned. The hon. Member for Greenwich inquired about the public sector borrowing requirement. This comes into the same category as my answer to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook.
The hon. Gentleman asked about town centres and who would look after them. The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) also referred to this point and talked about landscaping and trees. The Government have always been aware of the need to provide for the management of the common properties in town centres. I include parks, roads and car parks. The arrangements will need to be considered town by town. This will involve discussion with the local authorities concerned. I assure Opposition Members that that is what we shall do. We shall find satisfactory arrangements. The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) mentioned the point as well.
There was a certain amount of confusion—it was not restricted to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) because I, too, got confused—about the relevant clause of the Bill. The confusion is between local authorities and development corporations. Development corporations are agencies of the central Government. They have always been subject to ministerial direction. Development corporations borrow from the Government for capital investment. The power to require payments


from new town corporations is taken so that resources can be realised.
The hon. Member for Newton also asked about warehousing rather than manufacturing units being built at Warrington in particular. There is a substantial amount of warehousing there. However, I should have thought that the hon. Member would realise that the distributive industries are employing as many people per acre as are manufacturing industries. Distribution and all that that implies in ancillary activities in servicing is an important facet of our objectives in this area.
In this, as in so many other areas, the Government's basic economic strategy is to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement. The Opposition do not agree. Hence, the amendment to negate Government policy on the disposal of new town assets to the private sector. We believe that our proposals can benefit the new towns and the nation. Even after the disposals, there will be a net investment, contrary to what the hon. Member for Harlow said. Certainly that will be the case this year. Our belief in the new town concept can be measured by the fact that in many cases we have taken that as a pattern for modelling the urban development corporations which we are to debate at a later stage.
We believe that the commercial and industrial assets concerned can be more effectively managed in private ownership. We are keen to reduce the unusually high involvement of the public sector in the new towns, many of which are now completed. We believe that it is time for the balance to be rectified. Nothing in what we are doing should be seen as an attack on the new towns. I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Guy Barnett: While listening to the Under-Secretary of State's speech I thought that, as on one or two previous occasions, the House was to receive a

non-reply to the debate, but in the middle of his speech he made a commitment on behalf of the Government which I think all hon. Members will want to consider. Certainly the chairmen of development corporations will be extremely interested in the Minister's assurance that a new town corporation will not be forced to sell assets against the best commercial advice. Presumably, if a development corporation with an allocation of, say, £5 million worth of assets to sell finds that it cannot sell certain assets because the best independent commercial advice is against it, it will be let off the hook and will not have to sell them. I emphasise that I do not mean the commercial advice available from the Department of the Environment after the Southport case which I quoted, where the Property Services Agency made such a vast loss on the taxpayer's property.

I should like to turn to two other points which the Minister failed to answer. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) raised the important issue of landscaping. Nothing was said by the Minister about what is to happen to those assets, who will have them and who will be prepared to manage them.

Secondly, nothing was said about the vital issue of small firms. In many new towns there is an important ladder principle which enables the small business man to grow into a big business man because the new town provides for those needs. I see those needs being seriously interfered with, if not destroyed, in consequence of this sales policy.

In general, because the Minister's replies to our arguments were unsatisfactory, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote for the deletion of this clause from the Bill.

Question put, That the amendment be made—

The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 277.

Division No. 400]
AYES
[6 pm


Abse, Leo
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)


Adams, Allen
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)


Allaun, Frank
Bidwell, Sydney
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)


Alton, David
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Buchan, Norman


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)


Ashton, Joe
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Bradley, Tom
Campbell, Ian


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Canavan, Dennis




Cant, R. B.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Pendry, Tom


Carmichael, Neil
Haynes, Frank
Penhaligon, David


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Heffer, Eric S.
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Cartwright, John
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Prescott, John


Clark, Dr. David (South Shields)
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Home Robertson, John
Race, Reg


Cohen, Stanley
Homewood, William
Radice, Giles


Coleman, Donald
Hooley, Frank
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Horam, John
Richardson, Jo


Conlan, Bernard
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cook, Robin F.
Howells, Geraint
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Cowans, Harry
Huckfield, Les
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Crowther, J. S.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Robertson, George


Cryer, Bob
Janner, Hon Greville
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
John, Brynmor
Rooker, J. W.


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rowlands, Ted


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ryman, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kerr, Russell
Sever, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Sheerman, Barry


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Kinnock, Neil
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Deakins, Eric
Lamb[...]e, David
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lamond, James
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Dempsey, James
Lester, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dewar, Donald
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Skinner, Dennis


Dixon, Donald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Dobson, Frank
Litherland, Robert
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Dormand, Jack
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Snape, Peter


Douglas, Dick
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Soley, Clive


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Spearing, Nigel


Dubs, Alfred
McCartney, Hugh
Spriggs, Leslie


Duffy, A. E. P.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stallard, A. W.


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
McElhone, Frank
Steel, Rt Hon David


Dunnell, Jack
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Stoddart, David


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McKelvey, William
Stott, Roger


Eastham, Ken
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Strang, Gavin


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
McNally, Thomas
Straw, Jack


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
McNamara, Kevin
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McTaggart, Robert
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


English, Michael
McWilliam, John
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Magee, Bryan
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


Evans, John (Newton)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Faulds, Andrew
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Field, Frank
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
Tilley, John


Fitch, Alan
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Torney, Tom


Flannery, Martin
Maynard, Miss Joan
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Meacher, Michael
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mikardo, Ian
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Ford, Ben
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Watkins, David


Forrester, John
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Weetch, Ken


Foster, Derek
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Welsh, Michael


Foulkes, George
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Whitlock, William


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Wigley, Dafydd


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


George, Bruce
Morton, George
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Ginsburg, David
Newens, Stanley
Winnick, David


Gourlay, Harry
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Woodall, Alec


Graham, Ted
Ogden, Eric
Woolmer, Kenneth


Grant, George (Morpeth)
O'Halloran, Michael
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Grant, John (Islington C)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Young, David (Bolton East)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David



Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Parker, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Hardy, Peter
Parry, Robert
Mr. James Hamilton and


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. James Tim.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Body, Richard


Aitken, Jonathan
Bendall, Vivian
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Alexander, Richard
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)


Arnold, Tom
Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Bowden, Andrew


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Berry, Hon Anthony
Boyson, Dr. Rhodes


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Best, Keith
Braine, Sir Bernard


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Bevan, David Gilroy
Bright, Graham


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Biffen, Rt Hon John
Brinton, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Biggs-Davison, John
Brittan, Leon


Banks, Robert
Blackburn, John
Brooke, Hon Peter







Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Pawsey, James


Browne, John (Wincheser)
Hicks, Robert
Pink, R. Bonner


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Pollock, Alexander


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Porter, George
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Buck, Antony
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Budgen, Nick
Hooson, Tom
Proctor, K. Harvey


Bulmer, Esmond
Hordern, Peter
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Burden, F A.
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Raison, Timothy


Butcher, John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Rathbone, Tim


Butler, Hon Adam
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Renton, Tim


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rhodes James, Robert


Charron, Paul
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Chapman, Sydney
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Ridsdale, Julian


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rifkind, Malcolm


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Kershaw, Anthony
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kimball, Marcus
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Clegg, Sir Walter
King, Rt Hon Tom
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Colvin, Michael
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Royle, Sir Anthony


Cope, John
Knight, Mrs Jill
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Cormack, Patrick
Knox, David
St John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Corrie, John
Lamont, Norman
Scott, Nicholas


Costain, A. P.
Lang, Ian
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Cranborne, Viscount
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Critchley, Julian
Latham, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Crouch David
Lawson, Nigel
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Lee, John
Shersby, Michael


Dickens Geoffrey
Le Marchant, Spencer
Silvester, Fred


Dorrell, Stephen
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sims, Roger


Dover, Densho[...]
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Speed, Keith


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Spence, John


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lloyd Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Durant, Tony
Loveridge, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Luce, Richard
Sproat, Iain


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Macfarlane, Neil
Squire, Robin


Eggar, Timothy
MacGregor, John
Stainton, Keith


Elliott, Sir William
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Emery, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Stanley, John


Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Steen, Anthony


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Major, John
Stevens, Martin


Fairgrieve, Russell
Marland, Paul
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Farr, John
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Stokes, John


Fell, Anthony
Mates, Michael
Stradling Thomas, J.


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mather, Carol
Tapsell, Peter


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Tebbit, Norman


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Mayhew, Patrick
Thomas, Rt Hon. Peter (Hendon S)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thornton, Malcolm


Fox, Marcus
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Trippier, David


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Miscampbell, Norman
Trotter, Neville


Fry, Peter
Moate, Roger
van-Straubenzee, W. R.


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Monro, Hector
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Montgomery, Fergus
Viggers, Peter


Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Moore, John
Waddington, David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Glyn, Dr Alan
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Goodhart, Philip
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Goodlad, Alastair
Mudd, David
Wall, Patrick


Gow, Ian
Murphy, Christopher
Waller, Gary


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Myles, David
Walters, Dennis


Gray, Hamish
Neale, Gerrard
Ward, John


Greenway, Harry
Needham, Richard
Warren, Kenneth


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Nelson, Anthony
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Neubert, Michael
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Grist, Ian
Newton, Tony
Wheeler, John


Grylls, Michael
Normanton, Tom
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Gummer, John Selwyn
Nott, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Raymond


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm &amp; Ew'll)
Onslow, Cranley
Wickenden, Keith


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Wiggin, Jerry


Hampson, Dr Keith
Osborn, John
Wilkinson, John


Hannam, John
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Haselhurst, Alan
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Wolfson, Mark


Hastings, Stephen
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Hawkins, Paul
Parkinson, Cecil



Hawksley Warren
Parris, Matthew
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hayhoe, Barney
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Mr. John Wakeham and


Heddle, John
Patten, John (Oxford)
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.


Henderson, Barry
Pattie, Geoffrey

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 115

URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREAS

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 191, in page 87, line 32 after 'so', insert:
and that the scale and complexity of development required is such that the local authorities for the area could not reasonably be expected to achieve its completion within a reasonable time.
This amendment may be insignificant in terms of debate. The principal amendment relates to the Government's proposal for urban development corporations, and it is important for local government. There has been a great deal of debate, both in Committee and in other places, about whether the Bill seeks to destroy local government, give it freedom, or put it in chains. There can be no doubt that the Government's proposals will allow urban development corporations to be established in any urban area. However, it is intended that they should be established in the docklands of London and Liverpool. The proposals will replace the existing local government structure. There can be no debate about that. Nor can there be any debate about the fact that they will change the effective constitution of local government. Some would argue that they will change the constitution of our internal government.
The proposals are remarkable, because they conflict with almost everything that the Conservative Party stated in its election manifesto. They also conflict with much of the Bill. The proposals will not give freedom to local authorities, because they will take away a large proportion of their powers, in those areas of London and Liverpool that are to be designated urban development areas. They will replace local government. They will provide a good deal of initiative and a great deal of power to a ministerially appointed group of persons. Those persons are accountable to the Minister for many of the functions of local government.
The power of patronage of any Secretary of State will be extended. In addition, the degree to which Whitehall will maintain direct surveillance over former local government matters will be increased. Central Government will have their powers increased, despite the fact that the Government have pledged to diminish those powers. The proposals

will extend the personal patronage of the Secretary of State. The powers of members of urban development corporations will be extended beyond those held by local government councillors.
Members of urban development corporations will be accountable not to the local electorate but to the Secretary of State. There has been a great deal of boasting and publicity about quango hunting and killing. We have been given lists of the quangos that have been killed as a matter of principle. Some of them were useful bodies, but there was no debate about them. I am glad that the Secretary of State is here, because he intends to create a new quango. There is some controversy about that quango, and the need for it has not been proved.
6.15 pm
If the Government are concerned about the regeneration of the docklands of London and Liverpool—a concern shared by both sides of the House—they might consider introducing an "Urban Development Corporation (Liverpool) Bill" and an "Urban Development Corporation (London) Bill". Perhaps the Minister will explain why they have not done so. If they had done that the merits of this proposal would have been given more consideration. In addition, private per sons, private interests and local authorities would have been given a proper opportunity to petition the House. The Bill's purposes would then have been particular, not general. The Bill would have become a Hybrid Bill.
The Secretary of State and the Minister have explained that they are not trampling on the rights of people to petition. There may be recourse to a hybrid order procedure in the other place. However, only the procedure of the other place enables the Minister and the Secretary of State to claim that individual persons and bodies corporate have recourse to Parliament. Their rights and privileges are prejudiced by the Bill.
There will be no public inquiry. In Committee, the Minister said that there would be no statutory consultation with the local authorities concerned. That is almost unknown in our British democratic tradition. At least, it is unknown in peace time. The Secretary of State will abrogate the power of central Government. People will be appointed who are accountable neither to the electorate nor


direct to Parliament. They will be accountable only to the Secretary of State. That is new, and it sticks in the craw not only of many hon. Members but of the public. It should stick in the craw of Conservative Members. The Bill has a general application and may not be restricted to London and Liverpool. It could apply to Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham, or any of the great conurbations. The Minister could threaten an urban development corporation if a recalcitrant authority did not do as he wished.
If someone were listening to the debate he might say that this was a terrible thing. He might ask why the Government were doing it. He might think that there must be an overriding reason for taking such drastic steps. The Government say that the needs of the docklands of Merseyside and of London are so great and so urgent that they can be solved only by urban development corporations. They might argue that to get the new machine going they must get rid of public inquiries, short-cut normal processes of statutory consultation, and introduce the measure by means of a series of orders, to be made at a later stage. That is a dictatorial procedure, which is contrary to our traditions.
In Committee the Minister admitted that the existing machinery was introduced by the former Secretary of State for the Environment—the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). I am glad that he is sitting in his place. He was confronted with the disaster produced by his predecessor. The right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), the present Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, had asked Messrs. Travers Morgan to look at the London docklands. The company took over 18 months to produce a report. During that time there was a complete stalemate. The Minister now points to the existing Dockland Joint Committee. When those proposals collapsed the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham said that we needed new machinery and that there should be a partnership of local and central government. He said that representatives from the dockland boroughs, from the Greater London Council and nominees of the Secretary of State—representing his national interest—should get together and get on with the job.
I am very pleased that that was done. They did get on with the job. They produced a plan after a great deal of consultation—the London dockland strategic plan—which was published widely and which, although it received some critical comment, was largely agreed by everyone. The dockland authorities have produced internal plans for the boroughs and recently they introduced a series of reports—"The Operational Programme, 1979–83"plus a technical appendix that shows that considerable progress has been made.
That was not good enough for the Secretary of State. The Minister of State, in wanting to change the present system, said in Committee:
I said I did not dissociate myself from some of the criticism made that nothing was going on at the moment. I said I thought a considerable amount had been done, but at not at the pace and not on the scale that we feel is needed to meet the problem."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 1 May 1980; c. 743.]
So the difference between us is narrow. It is not a question of objective. From what the Minister said in that passage it may not even be a matter of the machinery. It is a matter of pace and scale. According to the Minister, the present machinery cannot achieve the pace and cannot operate on the scale that he wishes, and therefore he wishes to dismantle it, put things back in the melting pot and start from scratch. I do not think that either in Committee or in the publications the Minister has yet demonstrated that the best means of changing the pace and scale is by dismantling one machine and putting another in its place. Surely the logic is to use the existing machinery and to adjust it where necessary.
At this point it would be quite proper to point out that problems of Merseyside and the London docks are rather different. I see that some hon. Members from Merseyside are here. No doubt they will say something about their area in a few moments. I make it clear that considerable progress has been made by the Dockland Joint Committee. Also, a report from a Select Committee of this House in 1974–75—the fifth report of the Expenditure Committee—said that at that time the Dockland Joint Committee should carry on. A parallel investigation by the similar committee in 1978–79 came


to the same conclusion. Although it did not report it took a great deal of evidence that pointed to that conclusion.
In the technical appendix, to which I have already referred, there is evidence that more than 6,000 homes are planned in the programme. More than £400 million has either been spent or will be spent in the dockland area of London. That does not take account of the recent announcement about transport, in which another £300 million will be invested—alas, not much in public transport; mostly in roads.
More than £100 million either has been spent or will be spent in my constituency alone, which covers half the dockland area. The new Beckton district plan has not been called in by the Minister and there is every hope that that plan—which was a local one—will go ahead.
Therefore, I ask the Minister why there is such a hurry? Why is there to be a change? He has replied in terms of pace and powers. The biggest difference between the two forms of machinery before us is that while the Dockland Joint Committee has full control of the land owned by public authorities it has never had powers of acquisition of land owned by public statutory undertakers. The powers provided for the proposed urban development corporation are considerable. They are powers of compulsory purchase, not only on private land, not only on the lands of the statutory undertakers which overrides any other protection that they may have under any other Act, but over the very local authorities that the urban development corporation is supposed to assist. That could mean a great deal of friction.
In Committee I asked the junior Minister whether he could tell me whether there was any land owned by municipalities or local authorities in the area for which there was either no planning permission or for which no plans had been made. We must remember that the excuse for this proposal is pace and scale, and the argument that the local authorities are incapable of doing it. We hear a great deal about derelict land. In Committee I asked the Minister where that land was. He said:
I cannot, off the top of my head, produce from the 1,900-odd acres one big landowning of a local authority that comes under the description of dereliction, but I shall be very

happy to write to the hon. Gentleman if I find one."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D; 8 May 1980, c. 900.]
Two days later I received a letter from the Minister in which he referred to the debate, and then he said:
You also asked about land for which no development proposals had been made, or which had no outstanding planning permission. I am not in a position to answer that; it is essentially a matter for the local authorities.
Therefore I do not believe that there is a case in relation to the local authorities or the land over which they have power of planning permission.
In conclusion, I believe that it would be right and proper for us, in protecting the rights of local authorities, their electorates and those who have a concern for the proper democratic development of areas of urban need, to write into the Bill the phrase that I have proposed in the amendment. That will put the onus on the Government to prove that the existing institutional arrangements are not sufficient. That wording was also used in the memorandum to the local authorities and the public at the time of the introduction of this proposal. The Government's case must rest on the inability of the existing public, democratically elected institutions to proceed with the pace and scale that everyone wants. I believe that the proper safeguard for those matters could be written into the Bill by this amendment.
The amendment does not attack a UDC; it does not even say there should not be one. All it says is that there should be a UDC where
the scale and complexity of development required is such that the local authorities for the area could not reasonably be expected to achieve its completion within a reasonable time.
That is reasonable. That is almost the same as the words—and if not the words, the intention—of the Minister, and I believe that he should include it in the Bill.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: As I said on Second Reading, I warmly welcome the possibility of creating new development corporations to regenerate the London docklands and Merseyside, but I am still firmly of the opinion that the Bill, as it stands, confers on the Secretary of State too much power. Like the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) I believe that it would


have been right to face the consequences of having one Hybrid Bill or two Hybrid Bills, instead of seeking to avoid listening to local representations, as the Government have attempted to do.
6.30 pm
The amendment cuts the power to some extent, although not perhaps sufficiently. Together with the other amendments, it would result in an improvement in the drafting of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the Government will give it favourable consideration, or at any rate undertake to consider more carefully the relevant matters before the Bill goes to another place.
It is important to spend a little time on this provision. The sweeping powers given to the Secretary of State enable him to set up urban development corporations in a way that is of concern not only to London docklands and Merseyside, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out. I appreciate that the powers are intended for use only in metropolitan areas, but the clauses are widely drawn. They could have serious consequences for any part of local government, by transferring to a statutory corporation, which would be essentially a creature of the Minister and which would involve wide powers of patronage and control, many of the normal functions of local authorities. The only restriction on the Secretary of State is that he must be:
of opinion that it is expedient in the national interest.
The Secretary of State does not even have to consider the local or regional interest, except in so far as it may be thought to impinge on the national interest.
Those provisions have rightly been attacked by the North of England County Councils Association and the North East Regional Association of District Councils. The Secretary of State is taking virtually unlimited powers to
designate any area of land as an urban development area.
The associations point out:
this is altogether too sweeping a power which could conceivably be used in future to replace local government by these 'Quangos' in substantial areas of the country.
The phrase "any area of land" could involve any constituency of any hon.

Member, be it Newcastle upon Tyne or Hexham. There is no limitation. The provision would apply not only to a metropolitan area. It could apply to a rural area if it happened to have a village in the middle of it.
I suggest that an obvious candidate for the attention of some future Government could well be the City of London. My right hon. and hon. Friends may for the moment view with equanimity giving to the Secretary of State power to
designate any area of land as an urban development area,
whenever he is of the opinion that it is expedient in the national interest to do so, when we are considering taking some 5,500 acres in the East End of London, where there are Socialist local authorities. However, would they feel the same about the square mile of the City of London? The only safeguard is that
no order … shall have effect until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
From my experience, I do not consider that much of a safeguard. If the Government accept the amendment, it would perhaps be more difficult, but, as the clause stands, the City of London would not even be able to make representations before an order was made.
The Bill lays down no criteria for designating an urban development area or establishing an urban development corporation. All that we know from clause 11 is that the object of an urban development corporation is
to secure the regeneration of its area".
That concept of regeneration is meaningless. It could mean almost anything. It is meaningless even when considered in the light of the means by which it is supposed to be achieved. Perhaps the Minister can explain what is meant by
bringing land and buildings into effective use".
What is the difference between use and effective use? That is an object that could apply to the City of London. What is meant by
encouraging the development of existing and new industry and commerce"?
That could apply to the City of London. What is meant by "creating an attractive environment"? That could apply to the City of London. What is meant by
ensuring that housing and social facilities are available to encourage people to live and work in the area"?


That could apply to the City of London, which is underpopulated. One does not have to have regard to all those objectives. One is sufficient. The provision is not even limited. There can be an objective other than those four.
The width of the general power in the Bill is such that any City of London urban development corporation, as much as any docklands or Merseyside development corporation, can acquire, dispose of or manage any kind of property, not merely land but even stocks and shares. As the hon. Gentleman points out, the powers of land acquisition are very wide. Under the Bill the development corporation can become a channel of investment. One can conceive of, in effect, a City of London enterprise board as a local enterprise board. It would have power to carry on any business or undertaking for the purpose of regeneration. It could generally do anything necessary or expedient.
Those powers are far too wide for the purposes of any Act of Parliament. From what the hon. Gentleman said, the House will have noted that there would be no requirement for a public inquiry before, for instance, the City of London was designated an urban development area. There is no requirement for the Secretary of State to consult or listen to objections from anyone, even the Lord Mayor of London, the Court of Aldermen or the Court of Common Council. The only safeguard in the Bill, if such it can be called, is that there is a possibility that the various statutory instruments will be subject to the hybrid procedure in another place. We shall not have much control over the matter here.
In Committee my right hon. Friend said that the designation orders would be hybrid, and he explained the procedure. He understood that they would be subject to the hybrid affirmative procedure and that they would need to be laid in draft before each House and would not come into effect until they had been approved by means of a resolution of each House. The inital technical scrutiny would be done by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. That would draw the attention of the House to any technical defects, but that would be as far as we could go. We could debate the order for an hour and a half, perhaps between 3 am and 4.30

am. That would be all the influence that we should have if a future Government decided to make the City of London into an urban development corporation.

Mr. Mikardo: We are gong to do it.

Mr. Rippon: The hon. Gentleman says that a Labour Government could and would do so under this Conservative measure.
As my right hon. Friend explained, the orders would be hybrid, and so subject to this further procedure in the other place. One must concede that if the City petitioned against an order the Hybrid Instruments Committee in another place could consider the grounds of the complaint and, if it thought fit, refer all or any to a Select Committee of five Lords proposed by the Committee of Selection. A future Government might rig the composition of the Committee of Selection, but I will not say anything about that. I hesitate to mention the possibility, but some Labour Members would like to abolish the House of Lords. If that happened, there would not even be the safeguard of the hybrid procedure.
I read carefully what the Minister said in Committee. He spoke of the problem of overlapping authorities and of the need for a single-minded agency to deal with areas of dereliction. I have a great deal of sympathy with the objectives of the proposal. We need to regenerate areas such as docklands and Merseyside, but it should be understood that the corporations will not exist in a vacuum, divorced from what is happening in adjoining areas. The most that we can hope for is that they will provide a more effective mechanism for resolving conflicts.
I am prepared to concede that the joint development committees, which were an interim solution because of the difficulties of introducing a hybrid measure, should be strengthened and that something needs to be done so that we can make further progress, but it is not just a question of the mechanism, whether it is a joint development committee or a development corporation. It is a matter of providing the necessary funds.
A few years ago, the docklands strategic plan estimated that the total cost of putting all the necessary transport infrastructure into docklands would be about


£760 million over 15 years. The recent allocation of £100 million for the creation of an adequate transport network for docklands, however justified it may be in present economic circumstances, must put a substantial brake on progress—whichever mechanism is adopted—coupled, as it is, with the decision not to proceed with the extension of the Jubilee line. As the Estates Times—not exactly a revolutionary organ of opinion—put it, it is like buying a racehorse, chopping off its legs, and expecting it to win the Derby.
The theory must be that the value of regenerated urban areas outweighs the constitutional objections that may be made to the sweeping power in the Bill. However, I do not think that it is enough to say of any parliamentary measure, introduced by any Government, that the sole test should be expediency. It is not enough even to say that the sole test should be efficiency. After all, there are some advantages in living in a country where the trains do not run on time.
However, I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Minister will either accept the amendment or give a firm undertaking that the Government will tighten up the Bill in another place. I regret that it is almost too late to do it here.

Mr. Mikado: I agree with much of what the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) said and I fancy that he will agree with some of what I have to say, because we have at least one thing in common. We both care deeply about the autonomy of local government.
Autonomous local government is no less important a part of the democratic system in this country—which we all value so much—than is the House. The daily lives of many people are conditioned much more by decisions taken in their town halls than by decisions taken here. Those in the town halls are nearer and more accessible to the people than is even the most assiduous hon. Member.
Local government matters, and, aside from the practical implications of what is being done in the Bill, the basic damage that is being done to the autonomy of local government is something that the whole country will have occasion to regret for many years.
6.45 pm
I expect that the Minister thought that the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham was being a little fanciful when he talked about the danger of a spread of urban development corporations to other areas, including some highly sensitive areas such as the City of London, but there will be a change of Government and a change of Secretary of State, and unless the Bill is amended or repealed the new Secretary of State will be able to exercise all the powers that the present Secretary of State can exercise.
I have not yet had any firm approaches from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), but I have heard it whispered that if he is the next Secretary of State for the Environment there is a possibility that he will invite me to be chairman of the City of London urban development corporation and will invite my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to be the vice-chairman. In that case, our first two projects will be to turn the Mansion House into a student hostel for the City of London Polytechnic and to turn the Guildhall into a training workshop for handicapped workers. That would be a good deal better than anything that is likely to be done by the urban development corporation for dockland.
The amendment does not oppose the principle of an urban development corporation; it merely argues that when a local authority is doing the necessary work, or can do it when it is needed, such a development corporation is not necessary.
The Secretary of State decided that the Dockland Joint Committee was not doing its job. What sort of study in depth did the right hon. Gentleman make of what was going on in dockland before reaching that conclusion? He began by taking a short flight over dockland in a helicopter and, looking down from the helicopter, he said that he could not see much going on. That was not a study in depth. It was a study in height.
I gather that the right hon. Gentleman's officials persuaded him to look at the site on the ground because if he did not do so there would be no credibility in what he was saying. The right hon. Gentleman spent 25 minutes driving


round Tower Hamlets, 20 minutes driving round Newham and 15 minutes driving round Greenwich. That was his study in depth. He considered that that great experience enabled him to claim that he was a better authority on what was happening in dockland than were those who had lived and worked in the area all their lives.
The Secretary of State, aided and abetted by some of his friends and some of their newspapers, fostered the myth that progress in the development of dockland has been held up by sharp differences of opinion—I think the emotive and pejorative word, regularly used, is "squabblings"—among the members of the Dockland Joint Committee. The Minister of State has come to this matter only since his present appointment. I have followed the work of the joint committee closely throughout the whole of its history. In only one measure has a sharp division of opinion risen and incidentally, it also caused a sharp division of opinion in this House. That was the issue of the southern relief road, which, thank goodness, is now settled.
The Dockland Joint Committee has worked remarkably harmoniously. It has got through more work in the years of its existence than any new town corporation in the same period. It is true that there have been difficulties from time to time with one member. That member is the florid, upstaging actor, Sir Horace Cutler, who is not the easiest chap in the world to work with. As everyone knows, he is a past master at producing publicity for himself but he is not very good at producing anything else. He has made some contribution, but the committee has suffered a little from his habit of flitting like a butterfly from one enthusiasm to the next, starting a lot of initiatives, following through very few of them, and finalising none.
Aside from him, the joint committee has worked efficiently and unitedly. In contrast with the present Government, the committee has been able to work unitedly, because it has not been bedevilled by any wars and rows between hawks and wets. It has got on with the job. What will happen now? I recognise that the embryo organisation of the UDC has been working, and working hard. It employed some consultants. I recognise that those consultants have

been working hard. However, it cannot get going until it is properly set up. There will inevitably be a period of delay and hold-up, however hard the UDC tries to avoid it. It has to get together an organisation and staff. It has to produce a new strategic plan and make all sorts of calculations and recalculations. It has to go through negotiations with the Department of the Environment, with the five boroughs, and with the GLC. This will take time.
The great curse of the East End ever since 1945 has been planning blight. It has been worse than the bombing blight inflicted by Hitler. Every time that anyone produces an idea, before it can be implemented, there is a call of "Hold on. Let's have another examination. We will bring out a fresh idea." That is how matters have proceeded. It will happen again. I am not saying that this time it will be like the Travis-Morgan blight, which was a couple of years of idiotic waste. On this occasion, Mr. Broackes and his team have got moving. But there will be some delay and blight. Progress will be interrupted.
I am happy for the present arrangements to be judged against the test and the criterion of what has been done and what is being done in dockland. I should like to confine my remarks to what has been done and what is being done in Tower Hamlets, which I know a good deal better than the other four boroughs. In Wapping and the Isle of Dogs there is contemplated and in train a project involving nearly 2,850 dwellings. They are houses with gardens, not flats. This has not happened in the East End in living memory, not even in the living memory of our grandfathers.
There are nearly 200,000 square metres of industrial space, with the creation of 7,000 jobs. That is being done without the UDC. There are 40 acres of open space for recreation. Wapping Wood is being replanted. There has not been a wood in Wapping for 300 years. All this has happened, notwithstanding, as the Minister knows, that there are several difficulties, because part of the land has to be dried out before it can be used. This is water being turned into land.
News International Limited is coming to the area in a multi-million pound enterprise that will create thousands of


jobs. If anyone talks of the need for a go-getting UDC, with a buccaneer like Mr. Broackes in charge, in order to cut through the delays in planning, I should like the House to know that planning permission was given for that multi-million pound operation in 20 days from the application. This story about incompetence and delay caused by local authorities does not stand up when one looks at the facts.
The empty shed 35 in the West India dock has been turned into 15 units of small businesses. They were filled within four months. I am happy to say that those 15 small businesses are doing well. I wish them every success. In the next shed, Billingsgate market is in the course of erection. I do not wish to weary the House, but many similar projects are going ahead. We are trying to rescue our rundown clothing industry by introducing clothing workshops with training facilities. We have started a centre for small business, of which I have the honour to be chairman. I do not have to declare an interest, because it is a highly honorary office.
This shows a remarkable partnership between the public and the private sectors which should be, and is being, followed in many places. It was started jointly by the Greater London Council, the borough council, the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the City of London Polytechnic. It is now funded by the borough council. It is a company limited by guarantee, with a board consisting of three members of the borough council, top level representatives of the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Port of London Authority and the City of London Polytechnic and the directors of half a dozen important companies in the area.
It is a perfect example of a working partnership between the public and private sectors. That is how nearly 100 small businesses that were in difficulty about finding sites, receive advice about financial operations, management, marketing and exports.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. I hope that hon. Gentleman has not overlooked the fact that we are dealing with amendment No. 191.

7 pm

Mr. Mikardo: My argument involves amendment No. 191. That amendment suggests that an urban development corporation is not needed if the job is being done. In my borough the job is being done. Nothing could be more germane to the amendment.
Analogies have been drawn between the UDC and the new town corporations. There are some similarities and some differences. The Government have overlooked an important difference. It is relatively easy to do a Milton Keynes and go to a place where there are green fields and a small village and build a city. That has been done brilliantly at Milton Keynes. The only consultation is with the cows in the fields. The cows' interests are the only interests affected. The dockland area is not empty. It is full of people. Some parts are more densely populated than others. The part of the dockland area in Tower Hamlets is only one-quarter of the total area, but it contains more than half the population. In that riparian strip between Tower Bridge and the Blackwall tunnel—which is narrow except where it broadens out at the Isle of Dogs—are 30,000 people with their own interests. It contains 30,000 highly vocal people with clear ideas of what they want. They nag the guts out of the borough council when they do not agree with something that it is doing. At least they can get at the borough council, because the councillors are accessible. If they do not take as much notice as they should, the people can sling them out at the next election and choose others. The people will not be able to sling out the members of the urban development corporation.
The many pressure groups in the area are studious and well informed. I warn the Minister of the danger so that he can guard against it. I do not want rumpuses. The people of the area have taken a close look at what is to happen to the area. I have met Mr. Broackes only once, for a short time. I read his autobiography with great care. So did hoards of people in the dockland area of Tower Hamlets. The best thing that has happened to Mr. Broackes as a result of his appointment is that it has increased the sale of his autobiography. Everybody in the area wants to know what sort of geezer he is and they have bought his book.
They have discovered that when he examines a piece of land he does not ask "What can be done with it? How many people can live on it? What industry could we put on it and how many jobs can we make out of it?" He does not ask what recreational facilities can be provided on it, or how many people can gain pleasure from it. He asks "How much money can be made out of it?" The people of dockland do not think that that is a good way to deal with their problems.
The attitude of Mr. Boackes is not mitigated by the appointment as his deputy of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). I use the term "Friend" in more than the conventional sense, because he and I are friends. I suppose that the Secretary of State said to himself "We are putting tis private enterprise buccaneer into the five Labour boroughs, so we had better find a fig leaf of respectability; we had better find a Labour chap to make it sound acceptable and respectable."
That is so transparent that it is bound to be counter-productive, as are all such manoeuvres. People are insulted by the suggestion that they can be kidded by something as obvious as that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey, in a previous incarnation, had some relationships with the inner London boroughs. If all is to be believed, they stopped short of wildly enthusiastic mutual admiration. I dare say that not all the scars have healed.
I promise the Minister of State that there will be a lot of difficulty and trouble from the 30,000 people concerned. The area includes Cable Street. Years ago the people of that area stopped Oswald Mosley and his Fascists going through the area, even though they were protected by masses of policemen. East Enders do not easily allow people to ride roughshod over them. I beg the Minister of State to be warned.

Mr. Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet): The House has heard three distinctive contributions—two from hon. Members who represent parts of one of the prospective UDC areas, the London docklands, and another from my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for

Hexham (Mr. Rippon), who was a distinguished Secretary of State for the Environment and had responsibility for planning in the docklands and other areas.
I have a different interest. I am one of 92 hon. Members who have the privilege of representing a part of our great metropolis. I should prudently declare an interest as an architect and planner and as a non-executive director of a property company. To my knowledge, I have no financial interest in whether the amendment is accepted or rejected.
Development is taking place in the designated London docklands. I shall confine my remarks to that area rather than to Merseyside. We are incessantly reminded by Mr. Cliff Michelmore on commercial television that development is taking place. I know that many people live in London docklands. Many people live in some of the designated new town areas. Rights are being taken away in the sense that at least in some spheres local people will not have control over local decisions as they do in other local authority areas. I accept all that.
The Government have had to make an extremely difficult decision, but I believe that they have made the right one. I do not object fundamentally to amendment No. 191, but the interpretation of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) was that the amendment seeks to take away from the Secretary of State the power to designate a UDC. I believe that the hon. Member received a nod of assent on that point from his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).
I paid particular attention to the legal aspects raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham, and having heard him I am worried about one or two matters. There is no perfect parallel, but I believe that this matter should be judged in the light of the fact that if the Secretary of State is minded to bring forward a general development amendment order he must obtain the approval of Parliament. Any attempt to set up a UDC in any other part of the country will enjoy the same safeguards—inasmuch as they are safeguards—of having the orders approved by both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Spearing: We must get this right. I cannot recall the exact words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), but I was assenting to the idea, since it has been made abundantly clear in Committee and in various memoranda that the only reason why the Secretary of State is introducing the concept of the urban development corporation is that the present machinery is inadequate for the job that he sees has to be done. That should be written in to the Bill, since the onus is quite properly, placed on the Secretary of State concerned to make out a case and use the case that he himself has presented.

Mr. Chapman: I am trying to say that the Secretary of State has to make out a case to satisfy Parliament before Parliament will give him the power to designate a UDC.
Of course development is going on, but that activity must be measured against the broad areas of dereliction that exist, though not everywhere, in the 5,000 acres of designated dockland. By any criterion, substantial tracts of that land have remained undeveloped for far too long. There is a wider context in this case, though I do not wish to go beyond the rules of order of the House by going outside amendment No. 191. However, I say with great sincerity that we are a densely populated, closely-knit island and the way in which we use every acre of land is vital.
It is nothing less than shocking that, inexorably, over the years we have eaten into our rich agricultural farmland, while it is estimated that not less than 250,000 acres of urban land lie derelict and rotting in the centre of our great cities and conurbations.
I do not quibble with the decisions of individual London boroughs, or with the decisions of the GLC under successive political parties. I do not quarrel with certain decisions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had to make under the planning powers entrusted to him. We can agree or disagree, but the point is that there are far too many cases—I disagree here with the hon. Gentleman—where, for good or bad reasons, one London borough has disagreed with another. On many occasions the London boroughs have been

unable to agree on what redevelopment should take place. On the occasions when they have all agreed, the chances are that the GLC has disagreed.
I pay tribute to the work done by the Dockland Joint Committee under the sterling chairmanship of Sir Hugh Wilson, but surely the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow will agree that the problem is that the joint committee has no executive power. Its role has been an advisory one for co-ordinating action or monitoring programmes. Though it has made some progress, because of the massive size of the area and its problems, the project needs a new initiative from the Government.

Mr. Mikardo: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, what he says is not right. The proof of what I say is that the Government have been asked over and over again to name a single project that has been delayed by differences on the Dockland Joint Committee, but they have been unable to do so.

Mr. Chapman: I have not brought a file with me to enable me to give chapter and verse to support what I am saying. There is the example of the delay and frustration caused by Tower Hamlets and the GLC, which put back by no less than nine years one of the most brilliant redevelopment schemes that this country has seen, namely, the redevelopment of St. Katharine's dock.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong.

Mr. Chapman: As a planning consultant and as an architect, I can give many instances of people approaching me with problems, though I am not saying that the problems are solely in the dockland area. Every local planning authority has problems, but, for one reason or another, there have been severe problems resulting in the inability to redevelop what, by any criterion, should be a prime site for redevelopment.
I concede that one of the problems is that the London boroughs feel that there is a lack of sufficient funds for redevelopment. However, I suspect that even if the Government were to triple investment in dockland those London boroughs would still say that that was not enough. I cannot pretend that the problems are


created by one side only, but there have been prevarications, disputes and squabbling between London boroughs. There have been fundamental differences of opinion between the London boroughs and the GLC. There have been differences between the GLC and the London boroughs on the one hand and the Department of the Environment on the other.
A fresh initiative is overdue and, therefore, I consider carefully the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend on the constitutional position. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Minister will say something about that. I can go one further. I had the privilege of representing part of an inner city in that mecca of municipal magnificence, Birmingham, for four years. I should like to see urban development corporations set up in other areas, not in order to snub the local authority—whether Conservative or Labour-controlled—but because I believe that the necessary scale of redevelopment is such that it cannot be handled without an initiative from the Government.
I have one objection in this context. The title "urban development corporation" is not particularly attractive. I have suggested to my right hon. Friend that the areas should be called SPAs or special priority areas. I hope that the House will give a fair wind to the concept. From a political as well as a professional point of view I believe that it is necessary. Such a measure is essential. It need not be permanent. It could run for a number of years. I believe that we should see these two UDCs set up—though I speak only for London dockland—because they could be successful and be the precursors of further UDCs, or special priority areas, where all the work could be co-ordinated. In those circumstances, representatives from local councils would be part of the corporation. They would have a say in what was being done and would have the chance to take executive powers.
I stand second to no one in my determination to preserve democracy. However, I believe that there are occasions when Government must lead and councils must have executive powers in order to be judged on their performance. If I have any doubt, it is because of the lack of redevelopment in the heart of our great metropolitan area.

Mr. Ted Graham: If the House wishes to hear the voice of those who live and work in the areas about which we are talking, I commend the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo). They spoke with sincerity and experience, and had at heart the interests of the people whom they represaid:
I begin by reminding the House of the Government's good intentions. The consultation document on the urban development corporations said something about which there can be no quibble. It said:
The overall objective of urban development corporations would be to secure the development of the designated areas and to play a major part in creating thriving urban communities.
I remind the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services, if he needs reminding, that he spoke fairly about his ambitions and aspirations about what the urban development corporations would do when he said:
Our concept is that we believe that there are areas of dereliction represented by the two sites for the urban development corporations which are of a scale, intensity and complication "—
I emphasise that phrase—
that are simply beyond the range of a number of local authorities working together. The Dockland Joint Committee has not been the most effective way in which to achieve the results. There is need for a single-minded agency working in this way if real results are to be achieved.
Therefore, the House should be clear that in promoting the concept of urban development corporations the Government are condemning the progress of the the Dockland Joint Committee and of the partnership principle, and are instead elevating the single-minded agency as an instrument. They jettison democracy in favour of speed. The result is all-important, never mind the direction or the casualties. Their attitude is speed, speed and more speed, and flexibility.
For example, we have had the enunciation of an extraordinary doctrine, because while many references were made in Committee about the experience upon which we could draw in creating the new towns, in this case, a new town will virtually be created on top of an old town. Under new towns legislation a


public inquiry is held, and everyone and anyone who wishes to object or to make a comment, constructive or otherwise, has the opportunity to do so. However, Government progress in this instance will deprive the community—which has a heart, mind and views—of the opportunity for public expression. Why consult and have appointees from the community for the new towns when the concept of the urban development corporation envisages nominees from the Secretary of State?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow said, we are not dealing with green fields on which there may be only cows or a small village; we are dealing with real people and communities in the real world of emotion, heartache, pride, passion and, above all, tradition. How does the Minister choose to represent and measure progress in such a complex and intricate situation? He should do so not just by considering the speed with which land will be brought, with which sites will be cleared, or with which roads, house and factories will be built.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow said, if one measures the progress that has been made during the operation of the Dockland Joint Committee and contrasts it with what occurred when a new town corporation was in operation, there is virtually no comparison at all. By saying that, I do not denigrate by one iota the progress that has been made in the new towns. Favourable progress has been made in respect of land designation, dwellings, factories and jobs. When the right hon. Gentleman referred to lack of progress in Committee—I think that the word he used was "wrangling"—he received short shrift from the leaders of Greenwich, Lewisham, Newham, Southwark and Tower Hamlets, who were not only astonished at his remarks but resented what was said.
Present progress has been criticised and challenged. In fact, lack of progress has been used by the Government and the right hon. Gentleman as the justification for casting aside the Dockland Joint Committee. In Committee and elsewhere, the Minister has said, in as many words, that progress has been too slow and that the size of the problems is beyond the scope of the joint committee. He said that

there had been constant wrangling. That infuriated the local authority leaders, and in my view revealed a woeful ignorance on the part of the Minister and the Government.
In this instance we are not dealing with comparable situations. The development of London dockland is unique, yet the way in which the Government have applied their criteria has been unfair in terms of the size of the problems that have been tackled by the council leaders, the committees and the joint committee.
The Minister talked about wrangling and differences. Did he really expect that there would be no arguments, differences or delays? Does he really believe that there will be no differences or arguments within a single-minded agency, if such were to be created? Will the members of such an agency be told "You will reach a conclusion, however bad it might be, unanimously and quickly, or else". The "or else" could well mean the sack, or something comparable.
What evidence did the right hon. Gentleman produce for the wrangling? In Committee, he was quick to point out that what he said were not his words but rather the views of The Economist, The Guardian and the South London Press. When we asked the right hon. Gentleman for more evidence, he said "Well, I can't give you that because it has been sent to me in confidence". There was not a shred of direct evidence produced in Committee. The Minister now has the opportunity to inform us of that evidence.

Mr. Mikardo: Of course, there have been delays similar to those referred to by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman). If a developer tries to milk a local authority, of course they do not agree very quickly, but that cannot be used as evidence of dallying on the part of local authorities.

Mr. Graham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the real world, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) must acknowledge that a choice is often involved. One can make progress if one agrees to the other person's terms and if one agrees to drop one's own arguments. What my hon. Friend has said from his experience is that whenever there has been delay or difficulty it has


been because the Dockland Joint Committee has wanted to fight its corner. I do not think that any hon. Member can take exception to that. The views of Labour Members about whether or not the present concept is right are not ours alone. We are not adopting a dog-in-the-manger attitude.
As the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet will know, the Royal Town Planning Institute is the professional body chartered to promote the art and science of town planning. It has said that its council, by a two-to-one majority, expressed its firm opposition to the Government's proposals on the ground that they are undemocratic in constitution and not accountable to local communities towards whose interests they should have primary regard, and that they are premised on a mistaken analysis of the nature of urban problems. I do not elevate that any higher than an opinion that should be reflected upon by the House and taken on board in the debate.
7.30 pm
Through establishing unelected bodies to run urban areas that already have well established local government, the Government have deliberately bastardised both the concept and the instrument of the new towns movement. The Town and Country Planning Association has made it clear that in its opinion the reason why the Government are not using the New Town Act 1965 is that it would require certain features about land acquisition, planning and public participation to be incorporated in the overall procedure, which it is not intended to include. By deliberately abandoning those safeguards the Bill, with its concept of the UDC, poses the greatest attack on the structure of local government yet seen in Britain. It provides further evidence of the hypocrisy and the lie that the Government are giving a greater say to local government. The Secretary of State will appoint all the members, the chairman and the vice-chairman. In so doing he will remove authority from the democratically elected local council.

Mr. Chapman: As the hon. Gentleman mentioned the RTPI, I wish to put it on record that I am a fellow of that institute. It is not the first time that I find myself in disagreement with its council. It is worth putting on record that

at least 90 per cent. of its members are employees of local authorities.

Mr. Graham: That is the case of a fellow well met. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations. No doubt there is a democracy inside that organisation, and no doubt the strictures will remain.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) drew attention to the opinions that appeared in the Estates Times only this week under the heading
Spending cuts will destroy UDC prospects".
We see in that article evidence of the left and right hands of the Government not knowing precisely what they are doing. Tonight, the Minister will tell us that the reason why the existing machinery is not good enough, and that new machinery needs to be introduced, is that it will get the capital, the expertise and the powers that it requires. Yet the Estates Times states:
Transport Minister Norman Fowler's decision to slash the money available for improvements in London's transport network makes a mockery of the Government's avowed intent to inject vitality into Docklands.
Having set up the Urban Development Corporation and set aside £400m for the revitalisation of the area, one would have thought the Government would have provided the corporation with the infrastructure to attract industry and commerce—and most important, people … To allocate a mere £100m to the creation of an adequate transport network for Docklands is futile.
The left and right hands of the Government do not know what they want to do in that vital area.
In our view the UDCs will be under severe pressure, because of the advance billing given to them by the Government, to live up to their claims. That will lead to unsuitable development taking place, the asset stripping of open, cleared space for quick returns to speculative builders, and the balanced and agreed programme produced by local authorities being set aside.
The Secretary of State has decided to neuter the local authorities, originally on the basis of a helicopter flight over London dockland. He did not see—he chose not to see—the slow, patient work on infrastructure, open space and industrial development that has taken place every day in those areas. Instead, he decided to establish unelected committees


to rule in the stead of duly elected councils. When we have the opportunity tonight, the Opposition will press the amendment as our best means of showing our anger and contempt for this nasty, undemocratic little Bill.
If the Government refuse to recognise the ability of the local authorities who make up the Dockland Joint Committee to manage those matters it will be the intention of a future Labour Government radically to alter the Bill to enable the joint committee authorities to assume again their sovereignty in those matters in their own areas.

Mr. Stan Crowther: I am convinced that whoever drafted the Bill had a good deal of experience as a greengrocer and fruiterer. He has put all the rosy apples at the front of the stall. The first part of the long title tells us that the Bill would relax controls over local government. Once past page 2 it becomes a Bill to impose new controls to restrict local government, to take away the powers of local authorities and to erode their long established democratic rights. The clause certainly continues that process.
It is fair to mention that before I became a Member of Parliament I spent more than 12 years as chairman of the planning and development committee in Rotherham—10 years before the reorganisation of local government, and slightly more than two years after reorganisation. I had the privilege of presiding over the considerable transformation of my town. I think that it is right to tell the House that I speak with some experience on that subject.
I listened with great interest to the earlier debate on the new towns. I have no doubt that the new town programme has been one of the success stories of the post-war years. I have no doubt also that if the older urban areas had been given the resources on a scale proportionate to those made available to the new towns, and if the local authorities responsible for those areas had been given the powers of the new town development corporations, especially the power to buy land at existing use value, a similar success—perhaps an even greater one—would have been achieved in the older towns and cities. It is unfortunate that those powers and resources have been

constantly denied to those authorities, although the case for granting them has been clearly made out.
I am supporting the amendment. Although I am opposed to the whole concept of non-elected bodies taking over functions from elected bodies, if we are to have that foisted upon us the scope should be limited in the way proposed by the amendment. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) have forcefully and properly pointed out that, whatever may be the present intention of the Secretary of State, once he has taken those powers they can be applied anywhere in Britain. All local authorities will be at risk. All will be threatened that extremely important functions will be taken away from them, especially in the areas of housing and planning. Why is it that the Secretary of State has so little faith in democracy? I hope that his right hon. Friend the Minister will tell us, if he knows the answer, when he replies.

Mr. Eric Ogden: The Minister's main experience has been trying to organise Tory Party conferences, and there is little democracy there.

Mr. Crowther: My hon. Friend has probably put his finger on the matter with that remark. There are certain questions that need to be answered. What circumstances would lead the Secretary of State to consider it to be in the national interest, under the terms of the Bill, to order the designation of an urban development area, and the establishment of a nonelected body to bring about its regeneration? We are entitled to be told what factors he has in mind if he will not accept my hon. Friend's amendment, which would clarify the position for all concerned.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that in Committee the Opposition moved amendments to add the words "local and regional" because the Government had made clear that all this was being done for the benefit of the people in the area or the people who might work there. However, for reasons that the Minister might best explain later, he declined to accept local and regional


importance as also having a place in the Bill.

Mr. Crowther: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that explanation. I did not have the benefit of being on the Committee, and it is extremely interesting to learn that the Government took that attitude. We are entitled to an explanation.
What circumstances are there—other than those which are provided for in my hon. Friend's amendment—which the Secretary of State would consider as justifying the very drastic measures of imposing an urban development corporation? Up to now, no one has come up with any answer to that, and I am sure that the House is entitled to know what is in the Government's mind if they are to oppose the amendment.
If the Minister has in mind certain factors other than these which would lead him to deprive an authority of its powers in very important fields, surely we are entitled to know what these factors are. At the same time, he must tell us, if he can, why he thinks that a non-elected body, having been set up, could do the job better than an elected body if the elected body had the same powers and the same resources. That is the test. If the local authority were given the powers which the urban development corporations are to be given, why is it thought that the local authority could not do the job just as well?
I mention, in parenthesis, that whatever kind of body may be set up to bring about urban regeneration, it will not succeed in solving the problem properly unless the Government are prepared to tackle the question of site values, which has bedevilled every attempt at urban regeneration since the war. The problem gets worse and worse. The Government should look very seriously at that question.
I sometimes wonder whether the Secretary of State and his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department ever go round the country and see what local authorities have achieved. Or do they spend most of their time sitting in Marsham Street working out ways to take more powers away from local government?
Despite all the handicaps, all the frustrations and all the obstructions, there have been very considerable advances to

the credit of local government in this country since the war—and, indeed, there were before the war. I do not feel that local government is ever given proper credit by the Government Front Bench. Incidentally, I have never felt that we had proper credit from Labour Government Front Benches either. The position may be rather worse now.
I am not pretending that all local authorities have outstanding achievements to their credit, but neither have all Government Departments. I claim very seriously that in general the record of local government in this country has been very good indeed, and especially in the old county boroughs. It is a matter of great sadness to many of us that the county borough concept has been abolished. But, bearing in mind the way in which local authorities for years have been short of resources, tied hand and foot in many cases by bureaucratic red tape coming out of Whitehall, drowned in circulars and swung this way and that by succeeding pieces of legislation—each one contradicting the previous one—the achievements of many borough and city councils have been little short of miraculous.
I am sure that the case for the amendment has been very fully made out, but if the Secretary of State really feels that it is vital for him to have this power to set up undemocratic, unelected and unaccountable bodies, at least that power should be severely circumscribed and should be used very sparingly.

Mr. Ogden: I came to the debate with a comparatively modest idea in mind. It was simply to ask the Minister to use the opportunity provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) to give the House as much information as he can about the progress, if any, of both the London area urban development corporation and the Merseyside urban development corporation. In spite of the temptation in the serious contributions made from each side of the House—I hope that the Secretary of State will take some time to read them—I in-end to keep to that point.
There was a time when I thought that perhaps my hon. Friend had not been quite as diligent and as careful as he


might have been in wording the amendment, which refers to:
local authorities for the area''.
Apart from the contribution of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), the debate has been about the London dockland area. It was about the London urban development corporation until the contribution just now of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther). But, of course, the amendment refers to local authorities—district councils, metropolitan councils, and so on—for the area. It does not apply only to London and to Merseyside. It applies to Stoke-on-Trent, to Manchester or to any other part. Good or bad, these are pathfinders.
I hope that the Minister will try to bring the House up to date with information. What has been said in Committee and what we can read of the Committee proceedings is useful, but it is not an alternative for things being said here on the Floor of the House. The Minister's privilege is absolutely secure. If he has information that he wants to give to rebut the charges that have been made, he can do it within the Palace of Westminster, as we all know, with complete impunity.
On Merseyside—my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) can confirm this—we recall that the chairman-designate and deputy chairman-designate were appointed, but since then there seems to have been a retreat behind an invisible wall. No one knows what is going on or what is not going on. The main difficulty is uncertainty—the unknown.
It might be that information coming from the London areas about what is or is not happening is more accurate than the information we have on Merseyside, but there are reports that in the London area consultants have been appointed and that schemes are being considered. There seems to be more openness there. Perhaps the Minister could encourage the chairman-designate and the deputy chairman-designate from the London area urban development corporation to engage in consultations with the chairman-designate and the deputy chairman-designate from the Merseyside area. They might have much to learn from each other.
I hope that the Minister will recognise that this is not merely a debate about London or about Merseyside, although we should like to have more information about those areas. We hope that he will give us information about other areas as well.

Mr. David Alton: In some ways I support the comments made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), because the Bill is not just about the creation of urban development corporations in Merseyside or in London; it is about the whole approach to local government.
Throughout the Bill it is clear that the autonomy of local government is being threatened. I know that the Minister will deny that, and I accept that during the debate he has been sincere in trying to defend local democracy, but sadly, I do not necessarily subscribe to the view that that is the approach that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State necessarily takes when he is looking at local government, because again and again it has been clear that the right hon. Gentleman has ridden roughshod over local government and would quite happily replace the concepts of democracy by those of dictatorship.
In looking at the concept of urban development corporations one is filled with a certain degree of alarm. As the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) said earlier today, urban development corporations could be set up anywhere in the country at the drop of a hat, whoever the Secretary of State might be. However much I might worry about the present incumbent, I could have even greater fears about his successors.
One wonders whether they might decide to set up urban development corporations regardless of local opinion or local need. The chairmen and deputy chairmen have been prematurely appointed, even before Parliament has decided whether it wants to establish urban development corporations. That is also endemic, and it demonstrates the arrogance of the Secretary of State in dealing with local government. It shows a contempt that is typical of the way in which the Secretary of State is treating local government.

Mr. Chapman: The hon. Gentleman has raised a crucial matter. He is talking about the ability of the Secretary of State to take away democratic powers at—as he says—the drop of a hat. Surely he realises that under clause 115 (2) any action has to be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. As I suggested before, this is equivalent to the Secretary of State seeking to change the general development order through an amendment. Surely he is not saying that if he seeks to do that it is a lack of democracy.

Mr. Alton: If I had the confidence that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) has, in the democratic system, and if I truly believed that the Government were elected by a mandate of the majority of the people, I would have sympathy with his view, but if the Whips are on there is little chance of that. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham warned—that warning should be heeded—that these powers could be used arbitrarily and could systematically undermine local government as we know it.
There is also a danger that we are duplicating too many layers and levels of local government. Let us consider the city of Liverpool. The Secretary of State's predecessor established the inner city partnership scheme, and I know that he has continued to visit the city and participated in meetings from time to time. I congratulate him on that. Together with the inner city partnership scheme there is the Merseyside county council, the Liverpool city council, a dock board in the area owned by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and many voluntary agencies. It is possible that in the city of Liverpool there will also be a free enterprise zone if other Government proposals are accepted by the House, and at the end of the day there could be so many different agencies, all meddling and all trying to be busybodies in sorting out the problems of the area, that the old adage of too many cooks spoiling the broth will apply.
I am convinced that the difficulty in local government on Merseyside arises from the conflict between the different agencies and the differences of opinion on how to iron out the problems. Sadly, many of those difficulties were created by the last reorganisation of local gov

ernment in 1973, and I urge the Secretary of State to consider removing unnecessary layers of local government, in order to save money. He should also consider removing the Merseyside county council and restoring its powers to a one-tier borough council in the form of a city council, and give it the job of dealing with the redevelopment of the urban areas.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman say that, because many years ago, on behalf of the Labour members on the city council, I moved a resolution against those who wanted to establish a county council. I believe in the concept of all-purpose, fairly large boroughs. That is a far more sensible and intelligent idea than metropolitan or county councils.

Mr. Alton: I agree with the hon. Member. One of the greatest disasters to befall local government was the reorganisation in 1973. That demonstrated the half-baked thinking that is endemic in these proposals. The reason why we need to place our trust in local government is that we live in a democracy, and local government should concern the election of democratic councillors who are accountable to communities. The urban development corporations will fail because they will not have that element of accountability. They will not be democratic, and they will not be related to local communities.
There have already been a number of misconceptions about the areas in which these development corporations are to be established. Anyone would think that some of those areas are dead. That is not the case in the South docks area. On Saturday I took the trouble to have discussions with the South Docks Tenants' Association. That group employs thousands of people in small businesses which honeycomb the whole of the south docks area. Those people are desperately worried about their future. They get one story from the county council, which wants to build the tallest building in the world and create a Disneyland park on the site of the south docks. They get another story from the planning officer in the city council. They get a different story from the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and at the end of the day they are told that they must wait


until the new urban development corporation is established. That has created great anxiety and worry.
If the Secretary of State is truly concerned about small businesses, before embarking on the establishment of an urban development corporation he should consult as many people as possible in the area that he is attempting to municipalise. He is doing what he has so often accused Members on this side of the House of doing. In effect, he is nationalising a whole area of land and putting it into the control of people who will not be accountable or democratically answerable to the community. The urban development corporation will be able to take decisions without consulting the people who will be affected. That is a serious state of affairs.
Far more important to the people living in the heart of the city of Liverpool is the Government's economic approach. A 16 per cent. interest rate and a 22 per cent. inflation rate spell the end for many small businesses. But a 13 per cent. unemployment rate is far more of a worry than the establishment of an urban development corporation which so far has created only two jobs—a chairman and a deputy chairman.
These matters are of fundamental importance. How will local authorities be able to work with the development corporations? What accountability and democracy will there be? Until those safeguards are given, I shall have to advise my hon. Friends to support amendment No. 191.

The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) moved amendment No. 191 and made it clear that although the amendment appeared to accept urban development corporations—the amendment is only a qualification of the terms under which they may be set up—he maintained his basic opposition to the existence of UDCs. That is not a great secret, because the House recognises that this is a wrecking amendment. Even if the qualifications had been added, the amendment would have effectively prevented or seriously delayed the establishment of UDCs. Any hon. Member who

is familiar with the wording of amendments in the House will recognise a lawyers' paradise when they see one, and the endless arguments about assessing the local authority's area could not reasonably be expected to be completed within a reasonable time.
I cannot recommend the House to accept the amendment. However, I should like to say a word about the question of criteria.
8 pm
I shall have to make some comments slightly out of sequence because I have replies to give to one right hon. and one hon. Gentleman, neither of whom is here. Therefore, looking around to see who is here, I shall comment on what was said by the hon. Member for Liverpool. Edge Hill (Mr. Alton). I shall start with my peroration, in which he was included. I am saved by the bell, because the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) has arrived in time to get his punishment. I am grateful to him for returning.
Contrary to what was said, I paid tribute in Committee to what had been done. I am aware of the London Industrial Centre, of which the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow is chairman, the part that he has played in it, the unique coincidence that that represents of the public and the private sector and the stimulus that it is giving to the development of small businesses. The hon. Gentleman used that as an illustration of what is happening in dockland.
A certain amount is happening, but as I made clear in Committee—the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) in a fair presentation of his side of the argument quoted my words regarding the scale, intensity and complication of the problem—whether one flies over, or walks or bicycles round dockland, one cannot be unaware of the massive scale of the problems. It is no disrespect to the local authorities. There is a peculiar problem here. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) asked why the local authority cannot be left to get on with it. One problem is that London's dockland covers the boundaries of five local authorities and one upper-tier authority. That adds to the peculiarity of the problem.
There is an enormous, expensive, job to be done. The hon. Member for Beth


nal Green and Bow referred to News International Limited. He will know that site. He will know the costs involved in the filling in of docks. He will know about the cost per acre in the reclamation of derelict land involved in dockland. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) will also be aware of the scale of the problems involved.
It is against that background that the Government decided that exceptional steps were justified. We were concerned about the progress that had been made.
The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow referred to my use of the word "squabbling". He will find that I did not use the word "squabbling", except to quote his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South who continually tried to put it ino my mouth.
In Committee I quoted from The Economist. It was suggested that this was some weird notion that my right hon. Friend had dreamt up and that nobody else could possibly agree with him, although my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham first initiated this approach to tackling what he recognised were exceptional problems.
The Economist stated:
After 10 years of blight and wasted opportunities marked by constant wrangling between mostly Labour dominated local councils, near bankrupt dock boards and ineffective strategic authorities in Greater London and Merseyside, it was clear that enough was enough.
I think that probably goes too far. I would not endorse it entirely. However, it shows that there is another point of view.

Mr. Mikardo: I did not go so far as to say that he was a good fellow.

Mr. King: The Guardian's view was:
The last Labour Government should have moved much faster on the docklands but were deterred by the local Labour councils who wanted control over sites without having the expertise or enterprise to carry out the work.
Again, that is too savage. I think that there was more progress than either The Economist or The Guardian concede.
There is the question whether there were delays. I have had certain information, the source of which I am not at liberty to disclose, but it is genuine and it is not partisan. It is clear that there were difficulties and squabbling—I am

talking now about the dockland situation—which inhibited progress.
I should like to make a quotation from Hansard which I made in Committee when an hon. Member thought that he should declare an interest as a member of the original Dockland Joint Committee. The argument was whether there should be an urban development corporation. This debate took place in 1977. The hon. Member said:
Perhaps because I was then involved in local government I took a different view from that taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) who, as he indicated today, is passionately in favour of a development corporation approach. On looking back, I am not sure that we should not have done better had we had a development corporation. I think it is fair to say that we would not have had quite the same degree of internecine warfare between the various members of the joint committee that we have had over the history of this development."—[Official Report, 14 March 1977; Vol. 928, c. 80–81.]
That is a quotation from a speech by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright)—not a member of this Government but a member of the Dockland Joint Committee. He used a phrase considerably more extravagent than I would have used. He referred to "internecine warfare". I put him before the House as someone who has experience of the problems and as part only of the evidence to show that there were problems in that respect.
The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow referred to the appointment of Mr. Nigel Broackes as chairman of the Dockland Joint Committee and to the substantial sales of his book, which is now required reading among all dockland politicians. He also prefaced his remarks by making clear what a close friend of his the right hon. Member for Bermondsey was. As I listened to his succeeding remarks, I must say he could have fooled me. His reference to his right hon. Friend as a "fig leaf for some political presentation" seemed to me to be about the most demeaning and diminishing remark that he could have made and showed his views of his right hon. Friend's qualities. Our appreciation is quite different. The right hon. Gentleman, who has represented dockland in the House with considerable vigour and determination for about 34 years, made clear his belief that a new approach to


dockland was needed and his passionate belief that in fighting for it he was fighting for the real interests of the dockers, the people who live in dockland, and of his constituents. We certainly would not seek to dismiss him in that derisory way as merely a "fig leaf for some political presentation".
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham made it clear that he had considerable sympathy for our approach to the urban development corporations, but expressed concern about the procedures, the democratic issue of the powers that could be taken and the ways in which they might be exercised arbitrarily in less favourable circumstances and in a different political climate.
I thought that my right hon. and learned Friend in the earlier part of his speech was not aware of the Hybrid Bill procedure to which I referred in Committee, but it would have been grossly impertinent to suggest that because, as he made clear later, he had taken my remarks in Committee into account on that matter.
I understand that a Lords Hybrid Bill Select Committee is not appointed by the Government. It has a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary as chairman and the Chairman of Committees and three other Lords as members. This is the procedure under which any aggrieved party which has a standing in the matter is entitled to petition Parliament against the setting up of an urban development corporation. This is the standard Hybrid Bill procedure which is part of Parliament's procedure for scrutinising such matters. Then the designation orders have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham and my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) made clear their concern about the criteria. We accept the point about the criteria and the point about the need to make it clear that there are rather more restrictive criteria and that quite perverse designations could not be made under this legislation. We had hoped to table the amendments at this stage. I am sorry that that has not been possible, but we intend to table such amendments in another place, so I hope that very largely the concerns expressed in that respect will be met.
The hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Bow and for Edmonton drew the analogy with the new towns. It was said that there was a great difference with new towns because they are all green fields, but many people live in dockland, and certainly very many more live in dockland than in the envisaged Liverpool UDC area. One understands that. However, I draw hon. Members' attention to Warrington and Central Lancashire new town, which would certainly not think that they were vacant green fields on which a new town has been imposed on an existing population.
I agree that certain rather greater powers are available to UDCs, but I think that the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Edmonton that this is the end of local government and is in some way a total abdication of democracy in these areas is a gross exaggeration. The implication is that somehow the UDCs will be running the whole of these urban areas. They will certainly have certain powers in the housing and planning fields, but the local authority remains fully responsible for the education service and social services and for environmental protection—the main functions of local authorities.
The hon. Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) and for Edge Hill took us, at the end of our debate, to the other areas. Up to that point, Liverpool had been somewhat neglected. As they rightly say, the position is that the chairmen and deputy chairmen have been appointed, as have the chief executives—all designate appointments. Exception was taken to the fact that as soon as the Second Reading was obtained, those appointments were made. That is a standing practice of this House. It is intended to avoid exactly the problem which I think otherwise hon. Members would berate us about—the risk of hiatus and lack of progress. Complaint has been made about the uncertainty that would be caused. But how much greater would be the uncertainty if there were to be a six-month or nine-month time lag before the people could even start on the preparatory work?
As I think the hon. Member for West Derby knows, discussions are already taking place with the local authorities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will be meeting both the


chairmen and both the deputy chairmen together in our Department next week. The hon. Member's suggestion was that great minds thought alike. We also thought it a good idea to bring them together in that way.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): Not the deputy chairmen.

Mr. King: I am sorry—the chairmen only; not the deputy chairmen.

Mr. Ogden: Perhaps I may tell the Secretary of State, through the Minister, that both of the deputies have knowledge of this House and of local government in their own areas. Perhaps the Minister could extend that, or at least have one meeting with the chairmen, carve up what he wants, and then have a second meeting with the deputies, both of whom are either Members of this House of former Members and have knowledge of both parts. I think that that will be essential.

Mr. King: We shall be happy to see what is most convenient. We certainly wish to establish the closest communications that we can in that respect. There have been meetings with local authorities. For instance, Mr. Leslie Young, the chairman, has addressed public meetings, in, I think, South docks, and meetings of interested people in Liverpool. There is no intention to operate under wraps. We shall certainly want to encourage the closest collaboration with local authorities and with the public to make a success of this undertaking.
8.15 pm
These are not intended as some secret takeover by some outside body of these particularly derelict and rundown areas of both London and Liverpool. These are intended as vehicles through which these areas can be regenerated and can once again become places where people will want to live and work, and where there will not be an endless public sector subsidy as the permanent drip-feed to maintain any form of viable economic life. We want these to be areas which become self-sustaining, with private sector investment and housing, and with public sector housing and public investment as well. These are intended to bring back areas which have had in their history great success but which have, by their nature and for historical reasons fallen on much har

der times. We want to give these areas an opportunity to become once more places which are of genuine value to their community and to the nation.

Mr. Crowther: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. King: I think, if I may, I should like to say—

Mr. Crowther: I fear that the right hon. Gentleman is reaching the end of his speech without having answered the most important question that I put to him. It is a very simple question. Other than the circumstances set out in the amendment which he is opposing, what circumstances would lead the Secretary of State to deem it expedient in the national interest to set up an urban development corporation? That is a very simple question. If the Minister will not accept the amendment, he should say what are the circumstances that would result in that happening.

Mr. King: Clause 117 sets out the object of an urban development corporation. In the order, it will be necessary for the Secretary of State to make clear his reasons and to put his case before the House before any single urban development corporation could be set up.
We shall have a vote on this matter. I think that the Opposition will vote against it. The impression may be given that in some way it is a partisan policy, that the establishment of urban development corporations are the policy of one side of the House and not of the other. If that were so, it would be very unfortunate. If hon. Members care to reflect on this matter, they will realise that the value of this approach has been recognised on both sides of the House. The right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has been one of the passionate advocates of this course of action for the docklands of London. It would be a very bold hon. Member who decided that he had a better understanding of that part of London and of this country than that particular right hon. Member.
We believe that this is an exceptional measure to tackle a quite exceptional problem. We believe—and this is a commitment of the Government—that it takes a single-minded agency with this approach to achieve the results that are


necessary. I hope that the House will feel that our proposals for urban development corporations are worthy of support in the interests of securing the regeneration of two of the most depressed and derelict parts of this country. If successful, they can bring benefit to all who live and work there.

Mr. Spearing: I should like to reply to the debate. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), for Edmonton (Mr. Graham), for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) and for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton), for their support for the amendment. I also have to thank the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) for his remarks.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham quite properly emphasised the dangerously unprecendented situation into which the House will, unfortunately, move in approving this part of the Bill and perhaps refusing the amendment. He referred to the fact that the areas of dockland are in five or six boroughs. They are not six pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, because each of the areas in the boroughs is attached socially and geographically to old urban centres. Perhaps they are connected more with them than with one another. These urban centres that are represented by the borough councils concerned.
The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) was the only Back Bencher to support the Government. I listened to what he said with

great interest, just as I read with great interest what he said about dockland in the Estates Times. I presume that that was part of the interest that he declared at the beginning of his speech.

I must make a few comments on the Minister's speech. He said that this was a wrecking amendment because it would prevent, or seriously delay, the inception of an urban development corporation. He justified the considerable changes that will be made in the structure of local government by saying that there was an overwhelming case for the proposals. I submit that the amendment uses the Minister's own case. If he rejects the amendment, he will indict his own logic. If he does not accept his own case, we must question whether the reasons that the Government gave for urban development corporations are those that they claim. I think that many of my hon. Friends will agree with that.

With regard to the delays and so-called wrangling, Conservative Members have not quoted any specific instances. The southern relief road was a matter of legitimate disagreement. No specific examples have been given to back up the Government's charges. That reinforces my belief that if the Government reject the amendment their reasons for setting up urban development corporations must be other than those that have been put forward.

I therefore call on my hon. Friends and on all right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to vote in favour of the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 281.

Division No. 401]
AYES
[8.24 pm


Abse, Leo
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cowans, Harry


Adams, Allen
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Cox, Tom (Wandsworth. Tooling)


Allaun, Frank
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Crowther, J. S.


Alton, David
Buchan, Norman
Cryer, Bob


Anderson, Donald
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Cunningham, George (Islington S)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Campbell, Ia[...]
Dalyell, Tam


Ashton, Joe
Campbell-Savours, Dale
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Canavan, Dennis
Davles, Ifor (Gower)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cant, R. B.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Carmichael, Neil
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Deakins, Eric


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cartwright, John
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Bidwell, Sydney
Clark, David (South Shields)
Dempsey, James


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Dewar Donald


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cohen, Stanley
Dixon, Donald


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Coleman, Donald
Dobson, Frank


Bradford, Rev. R.
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Dormand, Jack


Bradley, Tom
Conlan, Bernard
Douglas, Dick


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cook, Robin F.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce




Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Dunlop, John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Kerr, Russell
Robertson, George


Dunnett, Jack
Kilroy-Sllk, Robert
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kinnock, Neil
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Eadie, Alex
Lambie, David
Rooker, J. W.


Eastham, Ken
Lamond, James
Roper, John


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lester, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Rowlands, Ted


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ryman, John


English, Michael
Litherland, Robert
Sever, John


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sheerman, Barry


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Evans, John (Newton)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Faulds, Andrew
McCartney, Hugh
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Field, Frank
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Fitch, Alan
McElhone, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Fitt, Gerard
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Flannery, Martin
McKelvey, William
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Snape, Peter


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maclennan, Robert
Soley, Clive


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McNally, Thomas
Spearing, Nigel


Ford, Ben
McNamara, Kevin
Spriggs, Leslie


Forrester, John
McTaggart, Robert
Stallard, A. W.


Foster, Derek
McWilliam, John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Foulkes, George
Magee, Bryan
Stoddart, David


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)
Stott, Roger


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Strang, Gavin


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Straw, Jack


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


George, Bruce
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Maynard, Miss Joan
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Gourlay, Harry
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Graham, Ted
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Molyneaux, James
Tilley, John


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Tinn, James


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Torney, Tom


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morton, George
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Haynes, Frank
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Newens, Stanley
Watkins, David


Heffer, Eric S.
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Weetch, Ken


Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Ogden, Eric
Welsh, Michael


Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
O'Halloran, Michael
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Home Robertson, John
O'Neill, Martin
Whitlock, William


Homewood, William
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wigley, Dafydd


Hooley, Frank
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Horam, John
Parry, Robert
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Howell. Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Pavitt, Laurie
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Howells, Geraint
Pendry, Tom
Winnick, David


Huckfield, Les
Penhaligon, David
Woodall, Alec


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Janner, Hon Greville
Prescott, John
Wright, Sheila


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)
Young, David (Bolton East)


John, Brynmor
Race, Reg



Johnson, James (Hull West)
Radice, Giles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
Mr. Austin Mitchell and


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Mr. James Hamilton.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Body, Richard
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Aitken, Jonathan
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Alexander, Richard
Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bowden, Andrew
Chapman, Sydney


Ancram, Michael
Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Churchill, W. S.


Arnold, Tom
Braine, Sir Bernard
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Bright, Graham
Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Brinton, Tim
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Brittan Leon
Clegg, Sir Walter


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Colvin, Michael


Banks, Robert
Brooke, Hon Peter
Cope, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Brotherton, Michael
Corrie, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Costain, A. P.


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Bruce-Gardyne, John
Cranborne, Viscount


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Bryan, Sir Paul
Critchley, Julian


Berry, Hon Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Crouch, David


Best, Keith
Budgen, Nick
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Bulmer, Esmond
Dickens, Geoffrey


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Burden, F. A.
Dorrell, Stephen


Biggs-Davison, John
Butcher, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Blackburn, John
Butler, Hon Adam
Dover, Denshore







du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Knox, David
Renton, Tim


Durant, Tony
Lamont, Norman
Rhodes James, Robert


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lang, Ian
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Eggar, Timothy
Latham, Michael
Ridsdale, Julian


Elliott, Sir William
Lawrence, Ivan
Rifkind, Malcolm


Emery, Peter
Lawson, Nigel
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Eyre, Reginald
Lee, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Le Merchant, Spencer
Royle, Sir Anthony


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Farr, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott, Nicholas


Fell, Anthony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Loveridge, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Luce, Richard
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lyell, Nicholas
Shepherd, Richard(Aldridge-Br'hills)


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Macfarlane, Neil
Shersby, Michael


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Silvester, Fred


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Sims, Roger


Forman, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Speed, Keith


Fox, Marcus
Major, John
Spence, John


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Marland, Paul
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Fry, Peter
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Sproat, Iain


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mather, Carol
Squire, Robin


Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Stainton, Keith


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mawby, Ray
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stanley, John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Steen, Anthony


Goodhart, Philip
Mayhew, Patrick
Stevens, Martin


Goodlad, Alastair
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Gow, Ian
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Stokes, John


Gray, Hamish
Miscampbell, Norman
Stradling Thomas, J.


Greenway, Harry
Moate, Roger
Tapsell, Peter


Grieve, Percy
Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Moore, John
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Tebbit, Norman


Grist, Ian
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Thomas, Rt Hon. Peter (Hendon S)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Mudd, David
Thornton, Malcolm


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm &amp; Ew'll)
Murphy, Christopher
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Myles, David
Trippier, David


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neale, Gerrard
Trotter, Neville


Hannam, John
Needham, Richard
van-Straubenzee, W. R.


Haselhurst, Alan
Nelson, Anthony
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Neubert, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Hawkins, Paul
Newton, Tony
Waddington, David


Hawksley, Warren
Normanton, Tom
Wakeham, John


Hayhoe, Barney
Nott, Rt Hon John
Waldegrave, Hon William


Heddle, John
Onslow, Cranley
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Henderson, Barry
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Osborn, John
Wall, Patrick


Hicks, Robert
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Waller, Gary


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Walters, Dennis


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Ward, John


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Parkinson, Cecil
Warren, Kenneth


Hooson, Tom
Parris, Matthew
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hordern, Peter
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Patten, John (Oxford)
Wheeler, John


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pawsey, James
Whitney, Raymond


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Percival, Sir Ian
Wickenden, Keith


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Pink, R. Bonner
Wiggin, Jerry


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Pollock, Alexander
Wilkinson, John


Jessel, Toby
Porter, George
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Winterton, Nicholas


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wolfson, Mark


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Prior, Rt Hon James
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Kershaw, Anthony
Proctor, K. Harvey



Kimball, Marcus
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


King, Rt Hon Tom
Raison, Timothy
Mr. John MacGregor and


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rathbone, Tim
Mr. Robert Boscawen.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 192, in page 87, line 36, at end insert:—

'3(a) Before making an order under section 121, section 127, section 128 or section 129 of this Act the Secretary of State shall give notice to every concerned local authority of his intention to make the Order and of its proposed contents;


(b) In the above subsection "concerned local authority" means any County Council, District Council or London Borough Council whose area or part of whose area lies within the area of the Urban Development Corporation or proposed Urban Development Corporation;
(c) A body which receives a Notice under subsection (1) above may make representations as to why the proposed Order should not be made or as to its proposed contents;
(d) If no representations are made within 42 days the Secretary of State may submit the order to Parliament as proposed;
(e) If any concerned authority has made representations under subsection (3) above, the Secretary of State may modify the Order in the light of those representations;
(f) If any representations duly made are not withdrawn the Secretary of State, when submitting the Order to Parliament, shall submit also a copy of those representations together with such report thereon as he shall think fit.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): With this we may take amendment No. 193 in page 87, line 36 at end insert:—
(3) Before making an order under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult the relevant local authorities and shall take into account any representations made.'.

Mr. Spearing: I shall speak very briefly, because these are more in the nature of probing amendments. In the last debate we heard that urban development corporations could be set up without any public inquiry and without any statutory form of consultation whatsoever. In their consultation paper on urban development corporations, the Government said, in paragraph 2:
In the case of new towns a consultant's report is commissioned, a draft designation order published, a public local inquiry held to hear objections, and eventually a final designation order made. This procedure can take as long as two years. Such arrangements are appropriate in the case of the new towns sited in a wholly undeveloped area, in urban areas, however, they are an unaffordable luxury, since so long a period of delay would lead to excessive uncertainty and blight.
I concede that for the purposes that the Government have in mind the full procedure may be inappropriate. However, the parallel procedure set out in the amendment is desirable, practical and democratic, and would not take more than two months. If the Government were to accept the amendment and write in a time limit in another place they could have the consultation within two months.

If the Government want to make the procedure open to the public and retain a shred of democratic respectability, statutory consultations with local authorities, whose powers are to be transferred to Whitehall, is right, proper and fair, and that provision should be in the Bill.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I support the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). The provision in the Bill involves any new corporation that could be set up, which may take over certain functions of local authorities and will have to co-operate in exercising others. It will have to co-operate with other local authorities. We are talking about a possible urban development corporation, separate from that proposed for London and Liverpool. It is surely desirable that there should be proper discussion of the order in principle and in detail.
The hon. Gentleman's amendment is more detailed than mine and is very much on the right lines. It sets out provisions similar to those that already exist, under section 1 of the New Towns Act 1965, which seem to work pretty satisfactorily. I should have thought the provisions would appeal to the Government.

Mr. Fox: The only difference between the Government and the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is over the time scale. In Committee we said that we intended to consult local authorities before making designation orders. In addition, we promised to look at whether a formal early warning procedure could be written into the Bill. We are not yet ready with a Government amendment, but we still hope that it will be possible to do that.
We place considerable stress on speed. We cannot accept a delay of six weeks following Royal Assent. We hope that we can go some way towards meeting the hon. Gentleman's point. We have committed ourselves in regard to local authorities and other bodies, and we want the maximum time for comment. However, we cannot ignore the need for urgency.
We entirely accept the spirit of the amendment of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) and the need to consult local authorities before designating urban development areas. These matters were covered in Committee. I


trust that both hon. Gentlemen will accept that we are doing our best.

Mr. Spearing: This was a probing amendment. The Minister said that he is conceivably considering the matter. I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman felt that six weeks was too high a price to pay for democracy. I hope that the Official Report will be read in another place. For that alone this brief debate will have been worth while.
I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 116

URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS

Mr. Fox: I beg to move amendment No. 320, in page 87, line 41, at end add—
'(1A) An order under this section may be made at the same time as an order under section 115 above.'.
The purpose of the amendment is to make it absolutely clear that an order made under clause 116, constituting an urban development corporation, can be made at the same time as an order under clause 115, designating the corresponding urban development area. Both orders would come into effect once approved by a resolution of each House.
With the present wording of the Bill it is arguable that an order under clause 116 could not be made until the corresponding order under clause 115 came into effect. That is not the intention. As we have made clear throughout, we wish to have orders relating to both UDAs and UDCs considered by Parliament at the same time.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 120

ALLOCATIONS OR TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS

Mr. Fox: I beg to move amendment No. 321, in page 90, line 8 leave out
'subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 322 and 323.

Mr. Fox: The amendments are necessary to correct drafting flaws in two Opposition amendments that were accepted in Committee. The intention behind the Opposition amendments was to prevent any orders made under clause 120 coming into force before being approved by both Houses, but the wording, without the further amendments, would not have that effect. The Government amendments follow a promise that we made.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 322, in page 90, line 18 leave out
'subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament'.

No. 323, in page 90, line 41, at end add—
'(6) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument.
(7) No order under this section shall have effect until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Fox.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 121

VESTING BY ORDER IN CORPORATION

Mr. King: I beg to move amendment No. 324, in page 90, line 46 leave out paragraph (a).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:
No. 195, in page 90, line 46, at end insert
where the body or persons owning or having an interest in the land have not obtained planning permission for development of that land and'.

Government amendment No. 325.

Mr. King: Amendments Nos. 324 and 325 make clear that orders under clause 121 can be made at the same time as orders made under clauses 115 and 116.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 325, in page 91, line 3 leave out
'the urban development corporation for the area'
and insert
an urban development corporation established or to be established by an order under section 116 above for an area in which the land is situated'.—[Mr. King.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 122

ACQUISITION BY CORPORATION

Mr. King: I beg to move amendment No. 326, in page 92, line 25, leave out 'is' and insert 'may be'.
This is a drafting amendment. The object of the subsection is to avoid the compulsory purchase of land when the compulsory acquisition of rights is all that is needed.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 124

VESTING AND ACQUISITION: SUPPLEMENTARY

Mr. King: I beg to move amendment No. 327, in page 94, line 1, leave out subsection (4).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment No. 328.

Mr. King: These are consequential amendments arising out of decisions taken in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 126

PLANNING CONTROL

Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 196, in page 95, line 5, at end insert—

'(1A) In exercising his powers under subsection (1) above the Secretary of State shall take account of any approved structure or local plan for the area, or within London the Greater London Development Plan.
(1B) Before submitting proposals under subsection (1) above, an Urban Development Corporation shall give publicity to these proposals and make them available for inspection by the public, and where they are so substantial as to be comparable with a local plan shall arrange for appropriate public participation.'.
I return to the New Towns Act 1965 and the principle established under section 6(1), which I believe should be followed in the Bill. I am asking the Minister to include the amendment so that the Secretary of State should take account of any approved structure or local plans or, in London, the Greater London development plan.
We discussed at length in Committee the role of structure plans. It was accepted that they have a substantial part to play, though I think that they should have a greater part than does the Minister. It was certainly agreed that local plans are of great importance, and I hope that the Minister will either accept the amendment or give an indication that future directions will oblige urban development corporations to take note of the words in the amendment.

Mr. King: As we made clear in Committee, we accept the sense of the amendment. The question is whether the matter should be covered in primary legislation. I understand that it is more usual for issues such as the relevant statutory plan and the duty to consult on planning matters to be covered in orders, regulations or administrative arrangements.
However, we recognise the need for the UDCs to consult local authorities. We have not yet been able to produce a satisfactory amendment, but we are considering the matter to see how we could embody the spirit of the amendment in the Bill. I undertake that the Government will see whether we can meet the hon. Gentleman's wishes.

Mr. Ross: I am very satisfied with the reply. I am sure that the Royal Town Planning Institute, whose amendment it was, will be equally pleased. I hope that we shall see something definite on the Order Paper when the Bill goes to the other place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Clause 127

CORPORATION AS PLANNING AUTHORITY

Mr. Fox: I beg to move Government amendment No. 316, in page 95, line 44, after 'area', insert
'in place of any authority which would otherwise be the local planning authority'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

Government amendment No. 317.

Amendment No. 198, in page 95, line 46 at end insert—
(1A) Where an order is made under this section the Secretary of State shall require, within that order, that the Urban Development Corporations consult such other local planning authorities for the area on such particular clauses of applications as are specified, before determining any such application.'.

Government amendments Nos. 384, 385, 318, 319 and 386.

Mr. Fox: This is a long list of amendments. Amendment No. 316 is a drafting amendment, and part of the amendments to clause 127 designed to extend the planning function which can be conferred on urban development corporations by order. It merely repeats a provision in subsection (3) which is to be omitted.
The second planning amendment, No. 317, achieves a number of things. It is, first, a drafting amendment that repeats the substance of subsection (4) of the clause in relation to subsection (1) only. Subsection (4) as such is to be omitted because it is inappropriate to apply to the new subsection. The third planning amendment, No. 384, is a repeat of the first planning amendment, No. 317, to make it applicable to Scotland. The fourth planning amendment is similarly a repeat of the second planning amendmeent—amendment No. 317—to make it applicable to Scotland. The fifth planning amendment, No. 318, deletes subsections (3) and (4). These are replaced by the first amendment, amendment No. 316 and part of the second, amendment No. 317, both planning amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 317, in page 95, line 46 at end insert—

'(1A) The order may provide—
(a) that any enactment relating to local planning authorities shall not apply to the corporation; and
(b) that any such enactment which applies to the corporation shall apply to it subject to such modifications as may be specified in the order.
(1B) If the Secretary of State so provides by order—
(a) an urban development corporation specified in the order shall have, in the whole or any portion of its area and in place of any authority (except the Secretary of State) which would otherwise have them, the functions conferred by such of the provisions of the 1971 Act mentioned in Part I of Schedule (Planning functions of urban

development corporations—England and Wales) to this Act as are specified in the order;
(b) such of the provisions of the 1971 Act specified in Part II of that Schedule as are mentioned in the order shall have effect, in relation to an urban development corporation specified in the order and to land in that corporation's area, subject to the modifications there specified.
(1C) An order under subsection (1B) above may provide—
(a) that any enactment relating to local planning authorities shall apply to the urban development corporation specified in the order for the purposes of any of the provisions specified in Schedule (Planning functions of urban development corporations—England and Wales) to this Act which relate to land in the urban development area by virtue of the order; and
(b) that any such enactment which so appplies to the corporation shall apply to it subject to such modifications as may be specified in the order.'.

No. 384, in page 96, line 3, after 'area', insert
'in place of any authority which would otherwise be the planning authority'.

No. 385, in page 96, line 7, at end insert—

'(2A) An order under subsection (2) above may provide—
(a) that any enactment relating to planning authorities shall not apply to the corporation; and
(b) that any such enactment which applies to the corporation shall apply to it subject to such modifications as may be specified in the order.
(2B) If the Secretary of State so provides by order—

(a) an urban development corporation specified in the order shall have, in the whole or any portion of its area and in place of any authority (except the Secretary of State) which would otherwise have them, the functions conferred by such of the provisions of the 1972 Act mentioned in Part I of Schedule (Planning functions of urban development corporations—Scotland) to this Act as are specified in the order;
(b) such of the provisions of the 1972 Act specified in Part II of that Schedule as are mentioned in the order shall have effect, in relation to an urban development corporation specified in the order and to land in that corporation's area, subject to the modifications there specified.
(2C) An order under subsection (2B) above may provide—
(a) that any enactment relating to planning authorities shall apply to the urban development corporation specified in the order for the purposes of any of the provisions specified in Schedule (Planning functions of urban development corporations—Scotland) to this


Act which relate to land in the urban development area by virtue of the order; and
(b) that any such enactment which applies to the corporation shall apply to it subject to such modifications as may be specified in the order.'.

No. 318, in page 96, line 8, leave out subsections (3) and (4).—[Mr. Fox.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 128

BUILDING CONTROL

Mr. King: I beg to move amendment No. 199, in page 96, line 31 after 'that', insert subject to the provisions of the order,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 200 to 211.

Mr. King: This is a group of amendments to put right a number of technical and drafting errors in the clause. The amendments primarily concern the definition of London building legislation, which is the building control legislation applying in inner London, as distinct from the building control legislation in the remainder of England and Wales.
The amendments are mainly concerned with applying the national legislation where building control functions are transferred to a UDC operating in inner London.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 200, in page 96, line 33, leave out:
'in accordance with the order' and insert 'by the urban development corporation'.

No. 201, in page 96, line 34, leave out subsection (2).

No. 202, in page 96, line 40, leave out '(or portion)'.

No. 203, in page 96, line 42, leave out other than inner London'.

No. 204, in page 96, line 43, leave out:
'relation to which a building to which' and insert 'a case where'.

No. 205, in page 97, line 4, leave out paragraph (b).

No. 206, in page 97, line 8, leave out:
'relation to such a building' and insert 'such a case'.

No. 207, in page 97, line 10, leave out from 'applies' to end of line 12 and insert:
where after the order comes into force

there is such a grant of planning permission as is mentioned in subsection (5A) below—

(a) for the erection of a building in the area to which the order applies;
(b) for the alteration or extension of an existing building in that area; or
(c) for a material change in the use of such a building.
(5A) The grants of planning permission mentioned in subsection (5) above are grants of any of the following descriptions, namely, grants—'.

No. 208, in page 97, line 21 at end insert:
'(5B) In a case where—

(a) there is such a grant of planning permission in relation to a building or proposed building in an inner London borough; and
(b) the building or the site of the proposed building is in an area in relation to which an order has been made under this section,
the London building legislation shall not have effect, but building regulations and any enactment (including a local Act) relating to such regulations shall have effect instead.'.

No. 209, in page 97, line 32 leave out paragraph (c).

No. 210, in page 98, leave out lines 2 to 4.

No. 211, in page 98, line 5, leave out from 'legislation"' to end of line 15 and insert:
'means—

(a) the London Building Acts 1930 to 1978;
(b) any byelaws made under those Acts;
(c) subsections (2) and (3) of section 70 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and any regulations made under the said subsection (3).'.—[Mr. King.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 129

CORPORATION AS HOUSING AUTHORITY

Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 212, in page 98, line 19, after order) insert:
'without prejudice to the powers and duties of any local housing authority.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 213 and amendment No. 214, in page 98, line 36, at end insert—
'(7) An urban development corporation which is constituted a housing authority by Order under this Section and which builds houses for renting on monthly or weekly tenancies shall make arrangements for any local authority to manage such properties on their behalf.'.

Mr. Spearing: Amendment No. 212 relates to the powers of the urban development corporation in respect of housing. One of the matters not covered in a previous debate was the original intention of the Bill to give substantial and concurrent powers to an urban development corporation to exercise powers identical with and indeed in competition with those of a local authority. The complications of having an urban development corporation, the Greater London Council in the case of London and a London borough exercising similar powers inside any one London borough will be a bureaucrat's nightmare and certainly a nightmare for a local councillor and an hon. Member. Some concessions were made in Committee during the debate on housing and some second thoughts were quite properly indulged in.
I hope that the Government will consider amendment No. 212, with which my right hon. and hon. Friends have associated themselves and which safeguards the powers and duties of the local housing authority.
Amendment No. 214 provides that
An urban development corporation which is constituted a housing authority by Order under this Section and which builds houses for renting on monthly or weekly tenancies shall make arrangements for any local authority to manage such properties on their behalf.
I hope that the Government will look kindly on it. The reasons are clear. In an earlier speech the Minister stated that speed and resources are essential for the regeneration of these areas and that they can best be achieved by an urban development corporation. Perhaps additional capital will go into the areas. Even in these days of restricted public investment in housing there might be such investment.
After the houses are built, there must e a management arrangement with the local authority for lettings, rents, terms of tenancies, allocation of priorities and all the other complex matters that produce so many human problems. I am sure that even in rural Somerset people write letters about housing. There must be some co-operation of the kind suggested.
I commend the amendment in a suggestive frame of mind. I hope that if the amendment is not suitably framed the Government will consider imposing a duty on local authorities to manage, on

behalf of urban development corporations, the housing that results from their activities.

Mr. King: There is some uncertainty about the effect of amendment No. 212. It appears to enable housing powers to be given to a UDC without affecting the corresponding power of local authorities. The hon. Member referred to discussions in Committee. We have tabled amendment No. 213, which enables housing powers to be exercised concurrently by UDCs and local authorities. That meets a commitment that we made in Committee. I hope that the Opposition will be willing to ask leave to withdraw their amendment.
The principle of a local authority managing housing for a UDC has much to commend it. We made out a case for providing that it was necessary for a UDC to have housing powers, for instance for key workers. That is not likely to be a major involvement, and it could be helpful if it is possible for a local authority to manage housing.
I do not recommend the House to accept amendment No. 214, because it makes it a statutory duty for the UDC to manage housing. The amendment states:
An urban development corporation … shall make arrangements for any local authority to manage such properties on their behalf.
We do not wish to make that a statutory duty, but we are investigating ways in which it might be possible for local authorities to do that, because it has much to commend it.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of amendment No. 213, which goes almost, if not all, the way intended by amendment No. 212.
I understand wh the Minister does not wish to accept amendment No. 214, which contains an obligatory power. However, the arrangements could be made and not necessarily acted upon. There must be a degree of mutual understanding. The Minister referred to key workers, which is an important issue. Arrangements for key workers are made in the East London boroughs. That might smooth the way if he has second thoughts on this matter in another place. However, in view of


what the Minister said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 213, in page 98, line 25 leave out 'any such authority' and insert
'or concurrently with any such authority, depending on the terms of the order'.—[Mr. King.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 140

POWER TO SURVEY LAND ETC.

Mr. King: I beg to move amendment No. 329, in page 107, line 9, leave out `14' and insert '28'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment No. 330.

Mr. King: This amendment extends the period of notice—28 days and 14 days are referred to—that authorised persons will have to give to owners of land before they can place or remove apparatus, or search or bore, on land in connection with the surveying of land by UDCs.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 330, in page 107, line 23, leave out '14' and insert '28'.—[Mr. King.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 155

SCOTLAND

Amendments made: No. 215, in page 114, line 20, after 'Parts V', insert 'IX'.

No. 216, in page 114, line 21, after 'sections 36', insert '76'.—[Mr. King.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 156

NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move amendment No. 217, in page 114, line 27, at end insert
'section 146 and Schedule 25'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:

No. 248, in Schedule 25, page 209, line 29, at end insert 'and Northern Ireland'.

No. 258, in page 213, line 40, after 'Wales', insert 'and Northern Ireland'.
No. 265, in page 219, line 44, after 'Wales ', insert 'and Northern Ireland'.
No. 266, in page 220, line 2, after 'Wales ', insert 'and Northern Ireland'.
No. 267, in page 220, line 5, after 'WALES', insert 'AND NORTHERN IRELAND'.

Mr. Powell: We have now arrived, unawares so to speak, at a whole new and important topic—that of the enterprise zones. One might almost have read the Bill, so deftly is it drafted, and not have noticed that the enterprise zones were in it at all. They occupy of the text of the Bill—[Interruption]—I see that this is not a secret which I have probed for the first time—only two lines.
As has been known in other legislation, all the meat is in the schedule—in this case, schedule 25. Of that form of drafting, which may have its convenience, though it is on the face of it surprising, I make no complaint; but when we come to clause 156 we find that the all-important clause on the enterprise zones, clause 146, is not one of the clauses that apply to Northern Ireland. Thereby hang a number of considerations which I believe are of more than local importance. Indeed, they are of constitutional importance.
The creation of the enterprise zones will inaugurate fiscal and other privileges in the areas that are contained in them. The remissions of taxation that are involved—that is, the tax benefits—are considerable; indeed, they are the most important single aspect of the enterprise zones, which is why the enterprise zones featured in the Budget speech itself on 26 March. It is, therefore, though not wholly a fiscal provision, substantially a fiscal provision; for a provision, as we well know, which remits taxation, or relieves of taxation, is just as much a taxing provision as one which imposes it.
Curiously enough, although those tax benefits will be conferred by the Finance Bill, when it becomes law, the definition of those upon whom they are to be conferred is not contained in the Finance Bill. Paradoxically, the Finance Bill grants remissions but does not itself indicate to whom, specifically, those fiscal benefits are to inure.
For that we have to look to the Bill now before the House, which provides the ways and methods by which, in Great Britain, the enterprise zones will be constituted. So only by taking together this Bill when it becomes an Act and the Finance Act when it is on the statute book shall we have both the creation of the privileges and the definition of those who are to benefit by them.
That is not so in Northern Ireland, The enterprise zone—if there is to be one—in the Province will be defined not under the provisions of this Bill but by a different machinery altogether, under modalities of which hon. Members and others in Northern Ireland have been informed by a communication from the Northern Ireland Office, but which differ in some important respects from those that will be applied to Great Britain by the provisions of schedule 25 to the Bill.
9 pm
My submission is that that is an objectionable feature in principle. In this short debate I am anxious in no way to trench upon the constitutional debate about the future Government of Northern Ireland. I have no difficulty in avoiding doing so, because, as far as I know, it is unchallenged that tax affairs and fiscal provisions, under any conceivable arrangement by which Northern Ireland could be governed as part of the United Kingdom, are imperial subjects. Upon the face of it, it is only just and right that the laws of taxation that cover all the Queen's subjects throughout Britain should be contained in the same instruments and applied and enacted in exactly the same way. I claim that there is an impropriety in the arrangement whereby the Finance (No. 2) Bill will open the door to fiscal privileges in Northern Ireland, but those who will be allowed through the door will be defined and groomed under different provisions, and subjected to different conditions from those applying to the enterprise zones in Great Britain. My first plea therefore is that the provisions in the Bill should be applied to Northern Ireland by an appropriate amendment to the application clause.
I wish briefly to consider the practical effect of that. In Great Britain, the prac

tical initiative in the creation of an enterprise zone will lie with the relevant local authority. If hon. Members will look at the first paragraph of schedule 25 they will see set out the bodies in England and Wales—and, we propose to add, in Northern Ireland—that are to be invited to prepare a scheme under the schedule. It is true that the ultimate initiative, the invitation, proceeds from the Secretary of State; but the practical proposals are wisely and properly to be left in England and Wales to the local authorities, who should be in the best position to advise and to set out the form of a scheme.
It would not be a draftsman's pun if the words "district council" were, by the proposed amendment, applied also to Northern Ireland. There are district councils in Northern Ireland too. The House may be surprised to learn that there is a district council—its technical description is such—that is specially concerned with the mooted enterprise zone in Northern Ireland, namely a zone in the city of Belfast. Technically the city of Belfast is a district council.
In the most friendly manner I defy the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, whom we welcome to the Treasury Bench for this debate, to stand up and assert that the city of Belfast would be less well equipped to prepare a scheme for an enterprise zone than any other authority that could be nominated, including, with all respect, the Secretary of State himself.
We are to have a debate tomorrow morning in the Northern Ireland Committee in which we shall be able to examine in more detail the tentative proposals of the Secretary of State for the Belfast enterprise zone. Nothing that I wish to say trenches upon that debate. I am concerned with the principle that just as much in that Province as in any other part of the United Kingdom it should be the people who know, the local authority, who should be entrusted with the duty—given that in principle there is to be an enterprise zone—of saying how it should be bounded and constituted and for what purposes and in what way it should be organised.
The Minister and I know that in Northern Ireland the district councils, even so distinguished a district council as the city of Belfast, do not possess


certain powers which are exercised by district councils and other local authorities in Great Britain. Perhaps the function of planning could be mentioned as one particularly relevant in this context. But the Minister will also be aware that in practice for many years in Northern Ireland, by a procedure which is certainly beneficent, the district councils are invariably consulted by his Department on all planning decisions, and that it is the rarest thing for a planning decision finally to be given by his Department which does not carry the approval of the relevant district council. Indeed, we in Northern Ireland are now separated only by a paper-thin partition—though some of the thinnest partitions sometimes prove to be the most impenetrable—between consultation and executive authority. For practical purposes it is the district councils in Northern Ireland which already have the decision on planning matters.
I hope that the Minister of State will not ride off by saying that there is not a true analogy on both sides of the Irish Sea because neither the city of Belfast nor any other district council in Northern Ireland actually possesses the planning powers, technically and statutorily. I ask him to admit that, for all the purposes that are requisite in drawing up these schemes, the city of Belfast is as well equipped and as democratically constituted as any local authority on this side of the Irish Sea. My hon. Friends and I would therefore argue strongly that it is not merely a matter of constitutional propriety that schedule 25 should apply in Northern Ireland as in Great Britain, but that there would be great practical advantages in its doing so. The Secretary of State and the Government might well be saved thereby from certain blunders.
The second difference to which I want to draw attention relates to the order-making power. I have in mind paragraph 5 of the schedule, under which an order is to be made which, at the end of the preliminary procedure, will designate the enterprise zone. Here in Great Britain, this is to be done.
by statutory instrument subject to annulment";
but with Northern Ireland excluded from the schedule, as at present, the enterprise

zone will be set up in Northern Ireland by the fiat of the Secretary of State. It is true that the order by which he does it will be laid before Parliament, but unless I am much mistaken—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that order will not be subject to any parliamentary procedure whatsoever.
Once again, I do not want to trench, and do not need to trench, upon the well-trodden ground of the difference, under direct rule and the 1974 Act, between order-making procedure in Northern Ireland and the statutory instrument regime in Great Britain. I submit that that is not relevant, simply because we are here dealing with a United Kingdom matter; we are dealing with taxation, the remission of taxation, and with the definition of those who are to benefit by it.
The proposition which I put, and to which I would invite the Minister to address himself, is that it is plainly unconstutional—I go further than saying that it is improper—that those matters should be decided in one part of the country by a ministerial order which attracts no parliamentary action at all, when in the rest of the kingdom the order that brings them into effect is subject to parliamentary procedure.
I submit, therefore, on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself—indeed, on behalf of the Province of Ulster—that we are fully entitled to be brought within the procedure for the creation of enterprise zones which is to be enacted by this Bill, and that practical advantages would flow from doing that as well as constitutional propriety being satisfied.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Philip Goodhart): As one might have expected, the right hon. Member for Down South (Mr. Powell) raised a number of important and interesting constitutional points. There are basically two reasons why the Government cannot accept the amendment.
First, it has been the policy of successive Governments during direct rule to legislate for Northern Ireland by Order in Council, under the Northern Ireland Act 1974, on matters which would be the responsibility of a Northern Ireland Assembly and on which there is already a separate body of Northern Ireland law.
Clearly, there has been discussions about the best legislative means of implementing enterprise zone policy. The test that was used was to ask the question: would it be appropriate to return this issue to a devolved Assembly? The answer to this question was "Yes". It was thought that the non-fiscal element of the enterprise zone legislation, along with most other local government planning and land matters, would be returned to such an Assembly.
The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I do not want to reopen Wednesday's constitutional debate but, given the possibility—or probabality—of returning to devolved government, we believe that it is appropriate to legislate for Northern Ireland in this field in what might be called the normal way, namely, by framing an order containing provisions corresponding to clause 146 and schedule 25. That order is now being prepared.
Secondly, as the right hon. Gentleman said—and he is as aware of this as anyone in the House—the powers of district councils—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Before the Minister leaves the previous point, may I point out that his argument related entirely to the non-fiscal aspects of the enterprise zone arrangement. Surely he and the Government realise that what takes place under this schedule includes the fiscal with the non-fiscal, and that that is the whole burden of the argument which I put before the House.

Mr. Goodhart: That is an interesting argument, and I am told tentatively that there are examples, particularly in housing—I refer to mortgage relief—and that there are precedents for that way of approaching the matter. But I have not had time to check those precedents, and therefore I have not mentioned them to the House.
9.15 pm
I return to the district council side of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. The powers of district councils in Northern Ireland are different and are much more limited than those of local authorities in Great Britain. While I would not challenge the competence of members of the Belfast city council in

any way, I say that it is clear that it employs a smaller staff, and does not command the expertise in this area that local authorities in Great Britain command.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the responsiveness of the planning staff of the Department of the Environment and noted how often the Department accepted the advice of district councillors on planning matters. That is wholly right. But the ultimate responsibility is and must remain with the Department of the Environment.
I have, of course, already discussed the enterprise zone question formally with the appropriate committee of the Belfast city council, and I have discussed it with the Belfast co-ordinating committee, on which the council is well represented. I have no doubt that I shall be discussing the issue with it again.
To give the Belfast city council direct power to devise an enterprise zone scheme would be a constitutional change of some significance, which should be introduced not by the back door but as the result of an amendment to the Bill.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that tomorrow in the Northern Ireland Committee we shall be discussing the subject of the enterprise zones? The attitude that he is now taking is that the matter is a fait accompli. Even if the 12 hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies take an opposing view to that of the Government, they will be listened to, but the decision will have been taken tonight.

Mr. Goodhart: With due respect to the hon. Gentleman, we shall discuss at some length tomorrow in the Northern Ireland Committee the shape and scope of the enterprise zone. I am anxious to hear the hon. Gentleman's view, just as I am anxious to hear the views of other hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies. There is room for considerable flexibility on that matter, but there is no room for flexibility on the question of how we should legislate on the matter.
By legislating in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, we would be


introducing a considerable constitutional change regarding district councils. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to be wholly opposed to extending the powers of district councils in this way. Therefore I look forward to the discussion that we shall have in Committee tomorrow morning. Meanwhile, I cannot advise the House to accept the amendment.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It is obvious from what the Minister said that there is a constitutional issue which he recognises has not yet been fully resolved. He claims to be aware of certain partial precedents for the remarkable thing that we are doing—namely departing from the principle of fiscal legislation applying to the kingdom as a whole. Fiscal legislation under direct rule or under any conceivable devolution would apply directly to Northern Ireland as to other parts of the United Kingdom.
This is a matter which in subsequent stages of the Bill will need reconsideration and the Government will need to answer the questions which have been posed tonight. Therefore, it would perhaps be more appropriate for the amendment to be negatived than for me to seek to beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — New Schedule

PLANNING FUNCTIONS OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS— ENGLAND AND WALES

PART I

ENACTMENTS REFFERRED TO IN SECTION 127 (1B)(a)

Section 55 (control of works of demolition, alteration or extension of listed buildings).

Section 58 (building preservation notice in respect of building not listed).

Section 59 (planning permission to include appropriate provision for preservation and planting of trees).

Section 60 (tree preservation orders).

Section 61 (provisional tree preservation orders).

Section 61A (trees in conservation areas).

Section 62 (replacement of trees).

Section 63 (control of advertisements).

Section 65 (proper maintenance of waste land).

Section 87 (power to serve enforcement notice).

Section 90 (stop notices).

Section 91 (execution and cost of works

required by enforcement notice).

Section 96 (power to serve listed building enforcement notice).

Section 99 (execution and cost of works required by listed building enforcement notice).

Section 101 (urgent works for preservation of certain unoccupied buildings).

Section 103 (enforcement of duties as to replacement of trees).

Section 107 (execution and cost of works required by notice as to waste land).

Section 109 (enforcement of control as to advertisements).

Section 114 (compulsory acquisition of listed building in need of repair).

Section 115 (repairs notice as preliminary to compulsory acquisition under section 114).

Section 117 (minimum compensation in case of listed building deliberately left derelict).

Section 126 (management etc. of listed buildings acquired by local authority or Secretary of State).

Section 271 (application to local planning authorities of provisions as to listed buildings).

Section 277 (designation of conservation area).

Section 277A (control of demolition in conservation area).

Section 277B (formulation and publication of proposals for preservation and enhancement of conservation area).

Schedule 11 (control of works for demolition, alteration or extension of listed buildings).

PART II

ENACTMENTS REFERRED TO IN SECTION 127(1B)(b)

An order made by virtue of section 127(1B) (b) may make the following modifications in relation to the urban development corporation specified in the order and to land in that corporation's area:—

1. Section 181 (action by council on whom purchase notice is served) shall have effect as if—

(a) after "undertakers" there were inserted—

(i) in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), "or an urban development corporation";
(ii) in paragraph (c) of that subsection, "or any urban development corporation"; and
(iii) in subsection (2), "or urban development corporation"; and
(b) at the end of subsection (4), there were added "or, in the case of an urban development corporation, section 122 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, and "urban development corporation"means a corporation established by an order under section 116 of that Act".

2. Section 182 (procedure on reference of purchase notice to Secretary of State) shall have effect as if—
(a) in subsection (2)(d)—


(i)after "undertakers", in the first place where it occurs, there were inserted "or an urban development corporation"; and
(ii)after that word, in the second place where it occurs, there were inserted" or that corporation"; and 
(b) there were added after subsection (4):—
"(5) In subsection (3) and (4) of this section any reference to persons, authorities or statutory undertakers includes a reference to an urban development corporation established by an order under section 116 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.".

3. Section 183 (action by Secretary of State in relation to purchase notice) shall have effect as if after "undertakers", in subsection (4), there were inserted "or an urban development corporation established by an order under section 116 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.

4. Section 186 (effect of Secretary of State's action in relation to purchase notice) shall have effect as if—
(a) in subsection (1)—
(i)after "undertakers", in the first place where it occurs, there were inserted" or an urban development corporation"; and
(ii)after that word, in the second place where it occurs, there were inserted" or that corporation"; and
(b) the following subsection were inserted after that subsection:
"(1A) In subsection (1) of this section ' urban development corporation' means an urban development corporation established by an order under section 116 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.".

5. Section 212 (order extinguishing right to use vehicles on highway) shall have effect as if—
(a) in subsection (1), for "The provisions" there were substituted "Subject to subsection (1A) of this section, the provision"; and
(b) the following subsection were inserted after that subsection:—
"(1A) Any reference in this section to a local planning authority is to be construed as a reference to an urban development corporation established by an order under section 116 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.".

6. Section 213 (provision of amenity for highway reserved to pedestrians) shall have effect as if, after "boroughs" in subsection (5)(b) there were inserted" and
(c) in an area designated as an urban development area by an order under section 115 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, the urban development corporation established for that area by an order under section 116 of that Act; ".

7. Section 214 (extinguishment of public rights of way over land held for planning purposes) shall have effect as if—
(a)in subsection (1), for "Where" there were substituted "Subject to subsection (1A) of this section, where"; and
(b)the following subsection were inserted after that subsection:—
"(1A) Where any land has been acquired by an urban development corporation or has vested in such a corporation and is for the time being held by them for the purpose of regenerating their area—
(a) the Secretary of State may by order extinguish any public right of way over the land if he is satisfied that an alternative right of way has been or will be provided or that the provision of an alternative right of way is not required;
(b) subject to section 217 of this Act, the urban development corporation may by order extinguish any such right over the land, being a footpath or bridleway, if they are satisfied as aforesaid."; and
(c)at the end of subsection (2) there were added "and any reference to an urban development corporation is a reference to an urban development corporation established by an order under section 116 of the Local Government. Planning and Land Act 1980.".

8. Section 284 (power to require information as to interests in land) shall have effect as if in subsection (1)—
(a) after the words "local authority", in the first place where they occur, there were inserted" or an urban development corporation established by an order under section 116 of the Local Government. Planning and Land Act 1980"; and
(b) after those words, in the second and third places where they occur, there were inserted" or corporation"

9. Schedule 19 (proceedings on listed building purchase notice) shall have effect as if—
(a) in paragraph 1
(i) in sub-paragraph (1)(b), after "undertakers" there were inserted "or an urban development corporation established by an order under section 116 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980";
(ii) in sub-paragraph (1)(c), after "undertakers" there were inserted "or an urban development corporation";
(iii) in sub-paragraph (2), after "undertakers", there were inserted "or corporation";
(b) in paragraph 2(7), after "undertakers" there were inserted "or an urban development corporation"; and


(c) in paragraph 3(1)—
(i) after "undertakers", in the first place where it occurs, there were inserted" or an urban development corporation";
(ii) after that word, in the second place where it occurs, there were inserted" or that corporation".'.—[Mr. Fox.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New Schedule

EXPENDITURE OF GREATER LONDON COUNCIL

1. The provisions of Schedule 2 to the London Government Act 1963 (constitution and general functions of Greater London Council) relating to the capital expenditure of and loans made by that Council and to borrowing by that Council shall be amended as follows.

2. In paragraph 25, for the words from the beginning to "persons" there shall be substituted the words "Prescribed expenditure by the Council".

3. The following paragraphs shall be inserted after that paragraph:
"25A. Subject to paragraph 25B below, in paragraph 25 above and paragraphs 26 to 28 below ' prescribed expenditure' has the meaning assigned to it for the purposes of Part VIII of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 by section 58(2) of that Act (by virtue of which any reference to prescribed expenditure in the said Part VIII is to be construed in accordance with Schedule 9 to the Act).
25B. In the application of the said Schedule 9 to the Council—
(a) paragraph 1 shall have effect as if the following sub-paragraph were substituted for sub-paragraph (e):—
'(e) the making of grants and advances of a capital nature other than grants and advances—
(i) to local authorities;
(ii) to persons other than local authorities who are mentioned in paragraph 27(2)(b) to (f) of Schedule 2 to the London Government Act 1963;
(iii) to persons to whom the Greater London Council are authorised to lend an annual money Act'; and
(b) the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph 3:—
'3. The investment by the Greater London Council of a superannuation fund which they are required to keep by regulations under the Superannuation Act 1972 is not prescribed expenditure for the purposes of this Part of this Act.'.
25C. For the purposes of paragraph 25 above and of paragraphs 26 and 28 below

section 67 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 shall apply to an acquisition of an interest in or right over property by the Council as it applies to such an acquisition by an authority to whom Part VIII of that Act applies."

4. In paragraph 26(1) of that Schedule, for the words "on capital account" there shall be substituted the words "by way of prescribed expenditure, otherwise than by way of loan.".

5. In sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 28 of that Schedule the words "with the approval of the Treasury" shall cease to have effect.

6. The following paragraph shall be substituted for sub-paragraph (5)(a) of that paragraph:—
"(a) by way of prescribed expenditure, otherwise than by way of loan, for a purpose mentioned in that Act; or".

7. The following paragraph shall be inserted after that paragraph:—
"28A(1) The appropriate Minister may direct that—

(a) a specified part of the amount of expenditure authorised by an annual money Act may be spent only on a specified project;
(b) no part of that amount may be spent on a specified project.
(2) A project may only be specified under sub-paragraph (1) above if the appropriate Minister—

(a) is of opinion that the project is of national or regional importance, or
(b) is of opinion that the project, though not itself of national or regional importance, is part of a project which is of such importance.
(3) In this paragraph 'the appropriate Minister' means the Secretary of State, except in relation to expenditure for the purpose of functions the responsibility for which is vested in the Minister of Transport, and in respect of such expenditure, means that Minister.".

8. The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph 29 of that Schedule:—
29. The Council may borrow money for the purpose of prescribed expenditure if, but only if, the expenditure is authorised by an annual money Act.".'.—[Mr. Fox.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That the schedule be read a Second time.
This new schedule about the capital expenditure of the Greater London Council is in substitution for the schedule set out in Government amendment No. 218 which has not been moved. The schedule, as originally drafted, would have meant that the investment of the Greater London Council's superannuation funds would be subject to control as prescribed expenditure. That was not


intended and will not be the case with any other authority which invests its superannuation funds. The new version of the schedule ensures that the GLC will be treated on the same basis as all other authorities. It also incorporates several technical improvements to the drafting of the original version of the schedule.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule read a second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New Schedule

PLANNING FUNCTIONS OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS—SCOTLAND

PART I

ENACTMENTS REFERRED TO IN SECTION 127 (2B)(a)

Section 53 (control of works for demolition, alteration or extension of listed buildings).

Section 56 (building preservation notice in respect of building not listed).

Section 57 (planning permission to include appropriate provision for preservation and planting of trees).

Section 58 (tree preservation orders).

Section 59 (provisional tree preservation orders).

Section 59A (trees in conservation areas).

Section 60 (replacement of trees).

Section 61 (control of advertisements).

Section 63 (proper maintenance of waste land).

Section 84 (power to serve enforcement notice).

Section 87 (stop notices).

Section 88 (execution and cost of works required by enforcement notice).

Section 92 (power to serve listed building enforcement notice).

Section 95 (execution and cost of works required by listed building enforcement notice).

Section 97 (urgent works for preservation of certain unoccupied buildings).

Section 99 (enforcement of duties as to replacement of trees).

Section 101 (enforcement of control as to advertisements).

PART II

ENACTMENTS REFERRED TO IN SECTION 127(2B)(b)

An order made by virtue of section 127(2B)(b) may make the following modifications in relation to the urban development corporation specified in the order and to land in that corporation's area:—

1. Section 170 (action by planning authority on whom purchase notice is served) shall have effect if—

 (a) after "undertakers", there were inserted

(i) in paragraph (b) of subsection (i), "or an urban development corporation";
(ii) in paragraph (c) of that subsection, "or any urban development corporation"; and
(iii) in subsection (2) "or urban development corporation"; and
(b) at the end of subsection (5), there were added "or, in the case of an urban development corporation section 122 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, and "urban development corporation" means a corporation established by an order under section 116 of that Act".

2. Section 171 (procedure on reference of purchase notice to Secretary of State) shall have effect as if—
 (a) in subsection (2)(c)—
(i) after "undertakers", in the first place where it occurs, there were inserted "or an urban development corporation"; and
(ii) after the word, in the second place where it occurs, there were inserted" or that corporation"; and
(b) there were added after subsection (4):—
"(5) In subsections (3) and (4) of this section any reference to persons, authorities or statutory undertakers includes a reference to an urban development corporation established by an order under section 116 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.".

3. Section 172 (action by Secretary of State in relation to purchase notice) shall have effect as if
(a) after "undertakers", in the first place where it occurs in subsection (4), there were inserted "or an urban development corporation established by an order under section 116 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980"; and
(b) after that word in the second place where it occurs in that subsection there were inserted "or that corporation".

4. Section 175 (effect of Secretary of State's action in relation to purchase notice) shall have effect as if—
(a) in subsection (1)—
(i) after "undertakers", in the first place where it occurs, there were inserted "or an urban development corporation"; and
(ii) after that word in the second place where it occurs, there were inserted "or that corporation"; and
(b) the following subsection were inserted after that subsection:—
"(1A) In subsection (1) of this section 'urban development corporation' means an urban development corporation established by an order under section 116 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980".

5. Section 201 (order extinguishing right to use vehicles on highway) shall have effect as if in subsection (9)—
(a) after "councils" there were inserted"and in an area designated as an urban development area by an order under section 115 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, the urban development corporation established for that area by an order under section 116 of that Act," and
(b)after "that authority" there were inserted "or do not themselves exercise these functions".

6. Section 202 (provision of amenity for highway reserved to pedestrians) shall have effect as if in subsection (5)—

(a) after "councils" there were inserted "and in an area designated as an urban development area by an order under section 115 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, the urban development corporation established for that area by an order under section 116 of that Act," and
(b) after "that authority" there were inserted "or do not themselves exercise those functions".

7. Section 203 (extinguishment of public rights of way over land held for planning purposes) shall have effect as if—

(a) in subsection (1), for "Where" there were substituted "Subject to subsection (1A) of this section, where"; and
(b) the following subsection were inserted after that subsection:—

"(1A) Where any land has been acquired by an urban development corporation or has vested in such a corporation and is for the time being held by them for the purpose of regenerating their area—
(a) the Secretary of State may by order extinguish any public right of way over the land if he is satisfied that an alternative right of way has been or will be provided or that the provisions of an alternative right of way is not required;

 (b) subject to section 206 of this Act, the urban development corporation may by order extinguish any such right over the land, being a footpath or bridleway, if they are satisfied as aforesaid."; and
(c) at the end of subsection (2) there were added "and any reference to an urban development corporation is a reference to an urban development corporation established by an order under section 116 of the Local Government. Planning and Land Act 1980.".

8. Section 270 (power to require information as to interests in land) shall have effect as if in subsection (1) after the words "local authority", there were inserted "or an urban development corporation established by an order under section 116 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980".

9. Schedule 17 (proceedings on listed building purchase notice) shall have effect as if—

(a) in paragraph 1—

(i) in sub-paragraph (1)(b), after "undertakers" there were inserted "or an urban development corporation established by an order under section 116 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980";
(ii) in sub-paragraph (1)(c), after "undertakers" there were inserted "or an urban development corporation";
(iii) in sub-paragraph (2), after "undertakers", there were inserted "or corporation";
(b) in paragraph 2(7), after "undertakers" there were inserted "or an urban development corporation"; and
(c) in paragraph 3(1)—

(i) after "undertakers", in the first place where it occurs, there were inserted "or an urban development corporation;
(ii) after that word, in the second place where it occurs, there were inserted "or that corporation".'.—[Mr. King.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 1

PROVISIONS TO WHICH SECTION 1 (1) REFERS

Mr. King: I beg to move amendment No. 333, in page 115, leave out lines 4 and 5.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendments No. 351 and 370.

Mr. King: These amendments are concerned with restoring controls that it had previously been proposed to revoke.
The first amendment deals with the power of local authorities to vary or revoke noise abatement orders, which was inadvertently removed in drafting the Bill.
The second amendment deals with the power of the Secretary of State to require a local authority to provide a mortuary or post mortem room.
The third amendment concerns ministerial control over the fees payable for inspection of the register of theatrical employers.
In each case, the law is restored to its previous position.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Fox: I beg to move amendment No. 334, in page 115, line 7, leave out '(2)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following Government amendments: Nos. 335 to 350, 352 to 369, and 371 to 375.

Mr. Fox: The vast majority of these 39 amendments are purely technical, to improve the drafting of the Bill. One or two impart small changes of substance.

Amendments Nos. 334, 335, 337 to 341, 343 and 344 will avoid the possibility of confusion by removing unnecessary subsection references from schedule 1. One or two additional drafting amendments will also be needed to clause 1 (1), and will be made in another place. Amendments Nos. 346 to 350, 352 to 354, and 360 and 361 will insert explanatory notes to ease the task of users of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 336, 345, 357, 359 and 363 transfer items from schedule 1 to other places for greater consistency, and take on board four minor or con

sequential amendments to the Shops Act. Amendments Nos. 355 and 371, again for consistency, correct inadvertent omissions in the Bill as first drafted. Amendments Nos. 372 to 375 rearrange the entries in schedule 6 into proper chronological order and incorporate consequential changes which are necessary but which were previously overlooked. Amendment No. 364 brings "working standards" within the orbit of paragraph 1 of schedule 4. All the other amendments merely correct very minor drafting or printing errors.

I commend all these minor, but useful, amendments to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 335, in page 115, line 8, leave out '(1)'.

No. 336, in page 115, leave out lines 9 and 10.

No. 337, in page 115, line 12, leave out '(5) and (6)'.

No. 338, in page 115, line 13, leave out '(5) and (6)'.

No. 339, in page 115, line 14, leave out '(5)'.

No. 340, in page 115, line 16, leave out '(2)'.

No. 341, in page 115, line 18, leave out '(3)'.

No. 342, in page 115, leave out lines 19 to 22.

No. 343, in page 115, line 24, leave out '(7)'.

No. 344, in page 115, line 25, leave out '(2)'.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Mr. King: I beg to move amendment No. 222, in page 115, line 25, at end insert:
Local Government Act 1972 (c.70)
13A. Section 138 (emergencies and disasters).'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Government amendments Nos. 223 and 226.

Mr. King: These are three further controls that we propose should be removed. One is to lift restrictions on the powers of principal councils to take action in the event of emergencies and disasters. The second amendment relates to the power


of the Greater London Council to provide new open spaces. The third amendment permits authorities to set their own reasonable fees for theatre licences.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next 34 amendments are to be moved formally. They do not run in sequence, so I propose to read out the numbers, and if any hon. Member does not wish an amendment to be taken in the group, perhaps he will indicate that to the Chair.

Amendment made: No. 345, in page 115, leave out line 30 to 38.—[Mr. King.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 2

RELAXATION OF CONTROLS OVER FUNCTIONS RELATING TO CLEAN AIR AND POLLUTION

Amendments made: No. 346, in page 116 line 8, after '(6)', insert:
'(application of Public Health Act 1936 &amp;c.)'.

No. 347, in page 116, line 11, after (4)', insert:
'(power to repeal local statutory provisions)'.

No. 348, in page 117, line 34, after '(7)', insert
'power of Secretary of State to give authority direction as to the time by which it is to perform duty)'.

No. 349, in page 119, line 8, leave out from beginning to '(2)' and insert—
'11.—`(1) In section 23 (prohibition of parking to facilitate street cleaning) for subsection'.

No. 350, in page 119, line 20, after '28(1)', insert
'(supplementary provisions relating to pipes)'.

No. 351, in page 119, line 21, leave out from '63' to end of line 25 and insert—
'(1) (designation of noise abatement zones) omit "confirmed by the Secretary of State"'.

No. 352, in page 119, line 26, at end add
'(determination by Secretary of State of questions as to local authority area)'.

No. 353, in page 119, line 27, after '79(5)', insert
'(disclosure of trade secrets)'.

No. 354, in page 119, line 29, after 90(2)(b)', insert
'(interest on sums payable to water or other authorities)'.—[Mr. King.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 3

RELAXATION OF CONTROLS OVER FUNCTIONS RELATING TO AMENITY ETC.

Amendments made: No. 355, in page 121, line 19, at end insert—
' 2A. In section 12 (contributions towards expenses) omit the words "and subject to the approval of the Local Government Board"'.

No. 356, in page 121, leave out line 26 and insert—
'(a) in subsection (2), for the words from "forward" to the end substitute'

No. 358, in page 121, line 33, after 'agreement ', insert 'or'.

No. 223, in page 122, line 8, at end insert—

"(1) London Government Act 1963 (c.33)

9A. For section 58(1) (parks and open spaces) substitute—
(1) The Open Spaces Act 1906, except section 14, shall have effect as if the London borough councils and the Greater London Council were included among the local authorities to whom it applies."'.

No. 357, in page 122, line 21, at end insert—

Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 (c.3)

13. In section 3(2) (which empowers a local authority to give notice in the prescribed manner that they propose to remove an abandoned motor vehicle but provides that they shall not be entitled to remove it if the person to whom the notice is given objects to their proposal in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed period) omit "in the prescribed manner" and" in the prescribed manner and".

14. Omit section 4(4) (under which the Secretary of State may by regulations require a local authority by whom a vehicle is disposed of to give such information relating to the disposal as may be prescribed to such person as may be prescribed).

15. In section 6(2) (under which a local authority are not entitled to exercise their power to remove refuse other than motor vehicles which is situated on land appearing to the authority to be occupied by any other person unless they have given him notice in the prescribed manner that they propose to remove it and he has failed to object to the proposal in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed period) omit "in the prescribed manner" and "in the prescribed manner and".'.—[Mr. King.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 4

RELAXATION OF CONTROLS OVER FUNCTIONS RELATING TO WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

Amendments made:

No. 359, in page 122, line 24, at end insert—

'Shops Act 1950 (c. 28)

0.—(1) In section 8(1) (closing orders) omit the words "and confirmed by the Secretary of State in manner provided by this Act".

(2) In section 9 (procedure for making closing orders) omit—

(a)in subsection (2), the words from "and the order" to the end, and
(b) subsection (3).

(3) Omit section 10 (local inquiries for purpose of promoting and facilitating early closing).

"Revocation of closing orders

(4) For section 11, substitute—
11. A local authority may at any time revoke a closing order either absolutely or, if it is made to appear to the satisfaction of the authority that the occupiers of a majority of any class of shop to which he order applies are opposed to the continuance of the order, so far as it affects that class of shop, but any such revocation shall be without prejudice to the making of any new closing order.".'.

No. 364, in page 122, line 26, leave out from 5(1)' to end of line 28 and insert
'(working standards and testing and stamping equipment) for the words "the Board may from time to time approve or require as being" there shall be substituted the word "are".'.

No. 360, in page 123, line 7, after 41(2),' insert
(notice of appointment as inspector of weights and measures or of a person ceasing to hold that office to be given to the Secretary of State)'.

No. 361, in page 123, line 9, after ' 43(1)', insert
(which provides for the payment of fees where inspectors perform additional functions)'.

No. 362, in page 123, line 14, leave out ' fee ' and insert fees '.

No. 363, in page 123, line 18, at end insert—

'Trade Descriptions Act 1968 (c. 29)
Consumer Credit Act 1974 (c. 39)
Estate Agents Act 1979 (c. 38)

8A. The following provisions (all of which confer default powers), namely—

(a)in the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 section 26(3) and (4);
(b)in the Consumer Credit Act 1974, section 161(4), (5) and (6); and
(c)in the Estate Agents Act 1979, section 26(5), (6), (7) and (8), shall cease to have effect.'.

—[Mr. King.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 5

ALLOTMENTS

Amendments made: No. 365, in page 123, line 42, leave out from beginning to 'Section' in line 5 on page 124 and insert—

'1. Omit—
(a) in section 28(3) (rules to be confirmed), the words from "Rules under this section" to the end;
(b) in section 32(2) (approval of application of money), the words "and which is approved by the Local Government Board";
(c) in the proviso to section 47(1) (appeal against prohibition relating to allotment), the words from "but, if the tenant feels aggrieved" to the end;
(d) in section 49(2) (power to make grants or advances or give guarantees with consent), the words ' with the consent of, and subject to regulations made by, the Local Government Board ".
2. Omit section 54 (accounts and application or receipts) and".'.

No. 366, in page 124, leave out line 7 and insert—
'7. In section 22(1) (consent to and conditions of appropriation of land) omit the words from "with the consent" to "may impose".'.

No. 367, in page 124, line 9, at beginning insert 'Omit'.

No. 368, in page 124, line 11, at beginning insert 'Omit'.—[Mr. King.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 6

RELAXATION OF CONTROLS OVER CHARGES AND RATES OF INTEREST ETC.

Amendments made:

No. 225, in page 124, line 22, leave out from beginning to end of line 10 on page 125.

No. 369, in page 125, line 18, leave out 'decide' and insert
'may determine'.

No. 370, in page 125, line 19, leave out paragraph 5.

No. 371, in page 125, line 32, at end insert—

Rag Flock and Other Filling Materials Act 1951 (c. 63)

7A. In the following provisions of the Rag Flock and Other Filling Materials Act 1951, namely—

(a) section 2(1) (which requires the payment of a fee of £2 for the registration of premises for the purposes of the Act);
(b) section 6(1) (which requires the payment of a fee of that amount for the grant or renewal of a licence authorising a person to manufacture rag flock on any premises);
(c) section 7(1) (which requires the payment of a fee of that amount and the grant or renewal of a licence authorising a person to store rag flock on premises for use on premises registered under the Act), for the words "£2" there shall be substituted the words ")such reasonable amount as the authority may determine".'.

No. 372, in page 125, line 41, leave out from beginning to 'for' in line 6 on page 126 and insert—

'Housing Act 1961 (c.65)

8A In section 18(3) of the Housing Act 1961 (which relates to expenses incurred by local authorities in carrying out certain works) after the word "interest" there shall be inserted the words "at such reasonable rate as the authority may determine".

Housing Act 1964 (c.56)

8B In section 80(3) of the Housing Act 1964 (which relates to expenses incurred by local authorities in carrying out certain works)'.

No. 226, in page 126, line 14, at end insert—

'Theatres Act 1968 (c.54)

12A. In paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Theatres Act 1968 (fees for licences) for the words "fee as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State by order made by statutory instrument)" there shall be substituted the words "reasonable fee as the authority may determine".'.

No. 373, in page 126, line 26, at end insert—

' Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1972 (c.x1)

14A. In section 19(6)(a) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1972 (by virtue of which a London borough council may recover expenses in respect of the restoration of gas and electricity services, together with interest) after the word "thereon" there shall be inserted the words "at such reasonable rate as the borough council may determine".'.

No. 374, in page 126, line 31, at end insert—

' Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (c.65)

15A. In section 121(1) omit the words "section 10(2) of the Coast Protection Act 1949" and "section 23(5) of the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act 1969".

Housing Act 1974 (c.44)

15B. In subsections (2) and (3) of section 76 of the Housing Act 1974 (which provide for the payment of interest where certain grants fall to be repaid for breach of condition) for the words "the appropriate rate", in each place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "such reasonable rate as the local authority may determine".

15C. In section 81(2)(b) of that Act (which provides for the payment of interest where any instalment of a grant falls to be repaid on the applicant ceasing to have the required interest in the relevant land) for the words from "the rate" to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words "such reasonable rate as the local authority may determine".

15D. In section 82(6) of that Act (which provides for the payment of interest where an instalment of a grant is paid before completion of works and the works are not completed within the appropriate time) for the words from "the rate" to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words "such reasonable rate as the local authority may determine".

15E. The following paragraph shall be substituted for section 94 (3)(b) of that Act (which provides for the payment of interest on the recovery of expenses incurred by a local authority on default under an improvement notice):—
 "(b) at such reasonable rate as the local authority may determine.".'.

No. 375, in page 126, leave out lines 42 to 45.—[Mr. King.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 7

ENACTMENTS MENTIONED IN SECTION 42(10)(c)

Mr. Fox: I beg to move amendment No. 227, in page 127, leave out line 4.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Government amendments Nos. 228 and 229.

Mr. Fox: Line 4 of schedule 7 provides for the repeal of section 48(4) of the General Rate Act 1967, but repeals to that Act are dealt with also in part II of schedule 27—which is the schedule dealing with repeals—of this Bill. It is convenient for practitioners if all repeals relating to a particular Act are drawn together in one place. Accordingly, this amendment removes the repeal of section 48(4) of the General Rate Act 1967 from schedule 7 to this Bill and amendment 276 will provide for the repeal to be included in part II of schedule 27. This is a simple tidying-up operation.
Amendment No. 228 seeks to bring the wording used in schedule 6 into line with that used in clause 48, which requires a rate support grant report to specify all the determinations required by Part VI. Amendment No. 229 simply seeks to remove all references to paragraph 5, schedule 2 of the Local Government Act 1974. The amendment is a consequence of amendment No. 443, which incorporated paragraph 5 of schedule 2, appropriately reworded to schedule 8 of the Bill. Paragraph 5 of schedule 2 of the Local Government Act 1974 is to be repealed in due course by order under clause 42 (10)(c). I commend the amendments to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 8

DOMESTIC RATE RELIEF GRANT

Amendments made: No. 228, in page 128, line 2, leave out
'prescribed in relation to that area'
and insert
'specified in relation to that area in the Rate Support Grant Report'

No. 229, in page 128, line 17, leave out from 1967 ' to ' shall ' in line 20 and insert
'(which provides for the reduction of rates on dwellings by reference to the domestic rate relief grant) and paragraph 1 above'.—[Mr. Fox.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 9

PRESCRIBED EXPENDITURE UNDER PART VIII

Mr. Gordon Oakes (Widnes): I beg to move amendment No. 230, in page 129, line 5, at end insert:
3.—(1) Expenditure in connection with a trading undertaking of an authority to which this Part applies is not prescribed expenditure for the purposes of this Part of this Act if it is financed from the proceeds of that undertaking.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1) above "trading undertaking" means—

(a) any railway, light railway, tramway, road transport, water transport, canal, inland navigation, ferry, dock, harbour or pier undertaking;

(b) any telephone undertaking;
(c) any aerodrome;
(d) any market undertaking;
(e) any undertaking for the provision of entertainments under section 145 of the Local Government Act 1972 or any local enactment;
(f) any undertaking for the supply of district heating; or
(g) any civic undertaking.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it is convenient to take amendment No. 291, in page 129, line 5, at end insert:
'2A. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 59(3)(b) above, expenditure incurred in the acquisition of an interest in land other than the freehold interest therein shall not, to the extent that the acquisition relates solely to the provision of any industrial building or to the land reasonably necessary in connection with the provision of such building, be prescribed expenditure for the year in which the acquisition is made, but shall count as prescribed expenditure at the end o' the third year following the year of acquisition, but only for a proportion of the calculation of the money consideration in accordance with the provisions of section 59(3)(b) above in relation to the value of the land as at the actual date of acquisition, which is equal to the proportion by which the expenditure made in relation to the land by the acquiring authority in that third year exceeds the income received by the acquiring authority from the same land in the same year, and if in that third year the income received by the acquiring authority in relation to the land equals or exceeds the expenditure made by the acquiring authority in relation to the same land then no amount shall count as prescribed expenditure.'.

Mr. Oakes: I shall be brief. However, that does not diminish the importance of the amendment. I hope that my brevity will be rewarded by some concessions from the Government. All three local government associations strongly support the amendment.
Under part VIII of the Bill any capital that is gained by an authority, whether under a trading undertaking or not, counts as part of the capital allocation of that authority. The amendment simply seeks to say that the categories of trading undertakings listed in the amendment should be excluded from the total amount of capital to be spent by the authority. Therefore, if an authority makes a profit on a particular undertaking, it can apply part of the capital to the advancement of that undertaking.
The Conservative Party believes in trading, whether by a municipality or by a private individual who seeks to make a profit. If the Government do not accept the amendment they will discourage trading organisations from making a profit and from applying part of the profit to the development of the undertaking. Railways, transport undertakings and tramways are obvious examples. Let us suppose that Blackpool makes a profit on its trams, and that it wants to apply part of that profit to the development of the tramway. Should that money come out of its capital allocation? It has made the profit. It does not represent any burden on public expenditure. It wishes to expand the undertaking. Why should it not do so? That is an obvious example from paragraph (a).
I believe that there is only one telephone exchange in Hull. If Hull wants to spend capital on its telephone exchange out of its profits—I understand that the telephone exchange is unique and profitable—why should the citizens of Hull be deprived of their capital allocations for schools, houses and roads because money has been spent on that telephone exchange?
An aerodrome is an obvious example and would apply to Manchester, Luton and many profitable aerodromes that are run by local authorities. If they make a profit, the amendment would allow them to apply it without that amount being subtracted from the sum available to the authority. I hope that the Minister will not use the argument that we had last week about the viability of capital. I hope that he will not argue that if a local authority wants to spend money on any undertaking from its capital allowances it can do so. That does not apply in this case.
Let us suppose that an authority decided to use its capital allocation for schools on a new runway for its airport. There would be utter uproar. It is nonsense to suggest that that should take place. I said that I would be brief. However, that does not mean that the amendment is not important. All three local authority associations strongly desire the House to accept the amendment. I hope that the Minister will say something about the amendment that will make it acceptable to the House.

Mr. R. B. Cant: I wish to speak to amendment No. 291, which is being taken with amendment No. 230. I really have to screw up my courage here because I wrote to the Under-Secretary and he began the final paragraph of his reply to me with the words "I should warn you".
I shall be even briefer than my right hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes). Where a local authority co-operates with a pension fund in order to build factory units or to develop an industrial estate, the pension fund insists that the local authority takes the head lease of the development. The difficulty that arises is that the local authority cannot guarantee, in effect, to let the development. The point at issue is that the Government are insisting that this capital sum is deducted from the capital expenditure allocation.
We made the point in Committee that the only reason why the Government are adopting this stance is that they are concerned about the public sector borrowing requirement. We made it quite clear to them that, as the financial operation would be quite outside the PSBR—in other words, through funds provided by the pension fund—the effect would be nil. Quite apart from this, we now have a publication—an eminent occasional paper—by the two distinguished Bank of England Keyesian economists who have proved that the PSBR is now in real terms negative. Therefore, the economy needs a fillip.
The most important point is that anyone who is associated with local government knows that local authorities are becoming increasingly dedicated to trying to help small businesses. The way in which they feel that they can help the small businesses more effectively is by developing the small industrial estates or nursery units which are taken up almost immediately they are built.
Although the Under-Secretary has intimidated me a little in these matters, I still think that the Government should encourage what is, in many ways, a new dimension in local authority action, by not being so transfixed by the esoteric concept of the public sector borrowing requirement. The local authorities are taking a massive initiative in this area


and they are receiving wonderful financial support from the insurance companies and the pension funds. I should have thought that this happy marriage should be allowed to bear rich fruit in this form. The Government should not step in and say "We are sorry, but we must put this obstacle in your way". However, as I have said, I am totally intimidated by the Under-Secretary, and on the basis that half a loaf is better than none at all, I shall not press my amendment.

Mr. King: The right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) talked very eloquently about profit. But that is not what his amendment says. It says:
financed from the proceeds of that undertaking.
That means any takings at the port, airport, theatre or whatever undertaking is referred to in the amendment. That is a very different matter. Despite the right hon. Gentleman's eloquent tribute to the need for profitability, his amendment does not follow that line. I do not want to quibble about that because the right hon. Member addressed himself to a serious point and I am sure that he will recognise that there is a technicality here. I am sure that he spotted it immediately. The word "proceeds" is capable of different interpretations.
There are problems in trading activities. The right hon. Gentleman gave the example of a runway. We recognise the regional airport problem. There may also be a problem with regard to ports, which are major trading activities with major capital investment requirements. It is possible to deal with the matter by regulation under schedule 9. We are considering the matter.
For technical reasons I could not accept the amendment, but, in any case, I would not wish to write such a provision into the Bill. However, the right hon. Gentleman has raised a valid point, which we shall consider. We are discussing the matter to see how we can meet the point under regulation. I give no undertaking about the totality of the matter, because the amendment covers all sorts of different activities. However, we are considering regional airports, and a number of hon. Members are also concerned about ports.
I was all ready to reply to the hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, Central (Mr. Cant). We could not get through the Report stage without hearing the authentic voice of Stoke. However, the hon. Gentleman said that he would not press his amendment. I could have threatened the hon. Gentleman much more effectively than my hon. Friend. His amendment is in the wrong place. It should be in clause 67. There was a mistaken reference to section 59(3)(b). It should be section 69(3)(b). The drafting of the hon. Gentleman's amendment leaves much to be desired. There are 14 lines, uninterrupted by so much as a semicolon.

Mr. Cant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had decided not to move my amendment, and therefore the Minister's comments are out of order.

Mr. King: I have some good news. I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the efforts being made by many local authorities in the field of industrial activity and in helping towards employment. However, we do not feel that the hon. Gentleman's amendment is the best way to tackle the matter. Amendment No. 144 to clause 62 goes some way towards meeting his point. It allows a local authority to treat as a capital receipt the value of land sub-let. Therefore, where authorities are able to let the land, they will get the capital receipt. That is an immediate exemption under the capital provisions, and will give considerable help to local authorities. I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels that I have responded positively to his amendment.

Mr. Oakes: I am grateful to the Minister for what he said. Although I used the word "profits", I was seeking to establish that the trading undertaking should be treated separately from the other authority duties. It is a commercial undertaking, which may not necessarily involve profits. An authority may need to borrow to extend a runway.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned airports. But I believe that telephone exchanges, such as in Hull, and transport undertakings are also important.
However, as the Minister says that he will look at the matter, and recognises that there is a problem, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 231, in page 129, line 6, leave out ' the Greater London Council '—[Mr. King.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 10

AMENDMENTS RELATING TO SURVEYS AND PLANS

Amendment made: No. 233, in page 131, line 6, leave out ' objection ' and insert objections '.—[Mr. King.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 11

FURTHER PLANNING AMENDMENTS

Amendment made: No. 236, in page 135, line 8, leave out ' ten' and insert ' seven '.—[Mr. King.]

Mr. King: I beg to move amendment No. 237, in page 136, line 6, at end insert—
'5A.—(1) In subsection (1) of section 55 of that Act (control of works for demolition, alteration or extension of listed buildings) for the words "this Part of this Act", in the second place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "subsection (2) of this section".
(2) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2) of that section:—
"(2A) If written consent is granted by the local planning authority or the Secretary of State for the retention of works for the demolition of a listed building, or for its alteration or extension, which have been executed without consent under subsection (2) of this section, the works are authorised under this Part of this Act from the grant of the consent under this subsection.".
(3) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (3) of this section:—

"(3A) Consent under subsection (2) or (2A) of this section is referred to in this Part of this Act as ' listed building consent'.".'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 238, 239 and 282.

Mr. King: The amendments are designed to ensure that the Government's intention to enable listed building consents to be granted in certain circumstances for works already carried out is given effect to. Amendment No. 282 is consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 238, in page 136, line 34, leave out 'sections' and insert 'section'.

No. 239, in page 136, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 21 on page 137.—[Mr. King.]

Mr. Fox: I beg to move amendment No. 376, in page 138, line 33, after 'authority', insert
'and the local planning authority may confirm any such order either without modification or subject to such modifications as they consider expedient'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take Government amendment No. 379.

Mr. Fox: The amendments give effect to an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend in Committee on 22 April. They will ensure that the valuable flexibility of the existing system of confirming tree preservation orders is retained, even though it will in future be the local planning authority, and not the Secretary of State, which confirms an order.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. King: I beg to move amendment No. 240, in page 139, line 18, at end add—

'Blight notices—objections

15A. In section 194(2)(d) of that Act (grounds of objections to blight notice)—
(a) after the word "that", in the first place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words"(in the case of land falling within paragraph (a) or (c) but not (d), (e) or (f) of section 192(1) of this Act)"; and
(b)for the word "ten" there shall be substituted the word "fifteen".
15B. Paragraph 15A above applies (and applies only) to a counter-notice served under section 194 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 after the passing of this Act.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment No. 242.

Mr. King: Amendment No. 240 is a further amendment consequential on the repeal of the Community Land Act. Amendment No. 242 was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) in Committee on 14 February. Both deal with blight notices.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 241, in page 139, leave out lines 24 to 30 and insert
relates to a transferred matter, as defined in section 70(5D) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, but was granted by a county planning authority before the commencement date, as so defined,'.—[Mr. King.]

Mr. Oakes: I beg to move amendment No. 290, in page 139, line 42, at end insert—
'In section 250 of that Act (grants for development) the following paragraph shall be inserted after subsection (1)(b):—
"(1)(A) For the purpose of the previous subsection 'redevelopment' shall include the renewal or refurbishment of any building on land which is situated within a designated conservation area where such works form a part of an overall redevelopment scheme consisting also of the erection of a new building or buildings ".'.
I shall be even briefer on this amendment, although it is an important one which was suggested by the Association of District Councils. It concerns the problem that arose, particularly in Chesterfield, over redevelopment in a conservation area. I do not think that it is controversial. Even if the Government cannot accept the amendment as drafted, I hope that they will accept the spirit of it and will move a similar amendment in another place.

Mr. Fox: The amendment would allow redevelopment grant to be paid towards the cost of acquiring buildings in conservation areas for refurbishment or renewal. Grant would not be payable towards the cost of the actual refurbishment or renewal.
The Secretary of State already has adequate powers under section 10 of the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 1972 to assist the preservation or enhancement of outstanding conservation areas, and those powers are being extended to all conservation areas by the amendment to paragraph 22 of schedule 11 to the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman's amendment seems designed mainly to provide additional funds for conservation purposes by extending redevelopment grants to something for which they were not designed. At a time when we are having to restrain public expenditure, the Government cannot accept such an extension

and I cannot recommend acceptance of the amendment.

Mr. Oakes: I regret what the Minister has said, because the amendment deals with a matter that is important to Chesterfield. However, in order to save the time of the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 242, in page 139, line 42, at end add—

' Blight Notices—Advances

17A. In section 256 of that Act (assistance for acquisition of property where objection made to blight notice in certain cases) for the words "as may be approved by the Secretary of State "there shall be substituted the words "as the council may think fit".'.

No. 243, in page 139, line 46, at end add—
'(2) The reference to sections 6 to 21 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 in Part II of Schedule 21 to that Act shall include a reference to the sections inserted in that Act by section 72 of this Act.'.[Mr. King.]

Mr. King: I beg to move amendment No. 244, in page 142, line 33, leave out from ' Section' to end of line 36 and insert:
'2 of the Local Authorities (Historic Buildings) Act 1962 (recovery of grants made by local authorities on disposal of property within three years) shall apply to a grant made by the Secretary of State under this section as it applies to a grant for the repair of property made by a local authority under that Act; and any reference to a local authority in that section shall accordingly be construed, in relation to a grant under this section, as a reference to the Secretary of State.'.
The amendment tidies up a complication in the present law. It ensures that if the Secretary of State wishes to exercise his discretion to recover grant when a grant-aided property is sold within a certain period, the Acts under which he would take such power are clarified.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 14

THE LAND AUTHORITY FOR WALES

Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 314, in page 147, line 44, leave out 'nine' and insert ' eleven '.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take amendment No. 315, in page 148, line 7, at end insert—
'(3) The Secretary of State shall have the power to co-opt two persons as members of


the Authority. Such appointments shall be unpaid and shall be made by the Secretary of State after consultation with such organisations as appear to him to be representative of private housebuilding in Wales. Co-opted members shall not have the power to vote.'.

Mr. Ross: This amendment relates to the Land Authority for Wales. I think that most hon. Members will agree that it is a pity that there was no Welsh Member on the Committee discussing the Bill. It is also sad that no Welsh Member, apparently wishes to take part in the debate on the authority on Report. I can only claim that I have a Welsh wife. The builders may have discovered that and decided that I was the right person to move the amendment. There is a feeling in the housebuilding community in Wales that it is not properly represented on the Land Authority. I am delighted that the Government have had the sense to keep the Land Authority for Wales. It has worked well. The Government deserve thanks for their common sense over that part of the Community Land Act.
The amendment enables the Secretary of State to add two people to the board of the Land Authority. The authority is, and will continue to be, one of the major bodies bringing forward land for development in the Principality. Although it has performed adequately in the past—this is accepted by house builders—it is unusual that little attempt has been made to take advantage of the experience of local developers. One developer is represented on the authority, but house building, possibly in greatest need for supplies of suitable land, is not represented. The amendment seeks to rectify that omission by expanding the membership of the authority by two.
Amendment No. 315 would give the Secretary of State power to co-opt two members from the house building industry. I give the Minister an option. I hope that he will take one of them.

Mr. Fox: I congratulate the hon. Member upon his ingenuity, but I do not intend to accept either of his options. In our opinion, the amendments as drafted would make even more of a change to paragraph 2 of schedule 14 than he has in mind. It would set the maximum number of members at 13, 11 full-time and two part-time. I have listened with interest to the point that he makes. I understand that he feels that private house

builders are not fully represented. After the fullest consideration, we believe that, as at present constituted, the numbers involved are more than adequate. The board has operated efficiently. On that basis, I must resist the amendment.

Mr. Ross: I knew that it was wrong to try to move an amendment that I knew nothing about. I accept what the Minister says. I am sorry for the house building industry that I have not succeeded in persuading the Minister to accept at least one of the options.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 19

LAND: MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS

Mr. King: I beg to move amendment No. 377, in page 171, line 2, at end insert:

'PART 1A

AMENDMENTS OF NATIONAL PARKS AND ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1949

1A.—(1) Subsection (4) of section 77 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (under which the power to acquire land for public access to the open country in a National Park is in certain circumstances exerciseable by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) shall cease to have effect.

(2) Accordingly, in subsection (5) of that section, for the words from the beginning to "be" there shall be substituted the words "The Secretary of State ".'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 380.

Mr. King: The amendment returns to the Bill at a more appropriate place material formerly in schedule 3 which was removed in Committee. At present, both the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have power to acquire land for public access to the open country in a national park. By the amendment, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gives up this power.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I beg to move amendment No. 245, in page 172, line 27, at end insert—
'10A.—(1) In section 290 (1) of that Act the definition of "building operations" contained


therein shall cease to have effect and there shall be substituted the following definition—
'building operations ' includes rebuilding operations, the demolition of buildings structural alterations of, or additions to buildings, and other operations normally undertaken by a person carrying on business as a builder.
(2) The following subsection shall be inserted after section 25 of that Act—
An application for consent to the demolition of a building may be made as a separate application or as part of an application for planning permission to redevelop the site of the building, but consent to demolition shall not be taken to have been given as part of planning permission for redevelopment of the site unless the appropriate authority on granting the permission, states that it includes consent to demolish any building.".'
The purpose of the amendment is to make demolition subject to planning consent. It seems strange that at the moment to convert a house from one unit to two or to extend it one needs to apply for planning consent. Property can be demolished without planning consent. The amendment corrects that anomaly.
I do not wish to impose further restrictions on property owners. The amendment has civil liberty and environmental implications. The London Evening Standard has campaigned against blight that lays waste to precious space. It talks of 25,000 acres of land in London being left derelict by the bulldozer after properties have been demolished without their owners seeking consent.
The recommendation that demolition should be made subject to planning consent was made by the Dobry report in 1976. Not only can local authorities demolish properties without the consent of their planning committees; private developers can demolish property. After they have demolished property and laid waste to land they often apply to the local authority to redevelop. To some extent they pre-empt the local authority's right to refuse planning permission. The alternative to granting planning permission is a derelict piece of land, an eyesore and an environmental nuisance.
Local authorities sometimes demolish properties without planning permission. They do not have to go through the planning process. As a result, local residents who object to what the local authority plans to do with the land on which the

demolished properties once stood, have no opportunity to exercise their right to object as they have when normal planning procedures are involved. Public inquiries and all decisions related to the plans are pre-empted by the demolition of the properties.
An example is the activity of the Redbridge Council. Redbridge produced a local plan for the demolition of 400 houses. It planned a town centre development on the site The people objected to the redevelopment, but the council acquired the properties and demolished them before a public inquiry was held. It had no planning permission to demolish the houses or for the town centre development. Objectors protested at the demolition because it took away their planning rights. Many of the objectors were visited by a local authority housing officers. One of them, Mr. Michael Petit visited the objectors and said that if they did not withdraw their campaigning activities against the demolition and the proposed town centre redevelopment plan, they would not be considered for rehousing. The people were due for rehousing. That was reinforced by the leader of the council Keith Salter. The families have not been rehoused.
Because the objectors refused to withdraw their objections to the city centre development, a quaint form of public participation took place and the council finally took the protestors off the housing list. That is harassment. If the provisions of my amendment were on the statute book that would not be allowed. Prior demolition and the gutting of properties and harassment could not occur. The council would be subject to planning procedures and the residents would have a right to protest. Demolition in advance of a public inquiry would not be possible.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I realise that the House wishes to get on, but this is an important amendment. Whether the actual wording reaches the requirements of the Minister or the Government I do not know. I suspect that it probably does not, but the amendment is of considerable importance to me.
I direct the attention of hon. Members to the activities of the city of Portsmouth where the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) was born. If hon. Members visited that


city and went to the Cumberland Road area they would almost weep at what has happened there, though I am told that the city has now had second thoughts. All the same, the authority put a bulldozer and a rammer into a number of owner-occupied houses, the owners having previously been forced to sell to the authority. Much damage was done, and floor boards were ripped up.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Ross: Those houses, of course, are unlikely to be inhabited again. They were in an area scheduled for road improvement and which was due to change its nature from residential to commercial and industrial use. The city has now had second thoughts, and some of the houses will be reoccupied.
That is an absolute tragedy. I suspect that it cost the ratepayers many hundreds of thousands of pounds and that that action destroyed perfectly adequate housing. I spoke to the residents there, many of whom bought their properties on leaving the Services after the last war. That tragedy could be repeated. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) mentioned Redbridge, and there are other areas of which hon. Members will know.
At one time I wished to see a ban on demolition in this country unless it had the consent of the Secretary of State. I thought that we had reached that point. We have a real housing crisis in the South of England and we need to keep all property that is in reasonable structural condition. I would have thought that there was something in the amendment that would appeal to the Department of the Environment and the Minister for Housing and Construction, who I realise is not here at the moment.
If there is a way in which something like this can be incorporated into the legislation, I believe that it would be worth while. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bootle for bringing the matter forward.

Mr. Fox: I listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman, but I have to tell him that there is nothing new in this proposal. In 1974 George Dobry suggested that this measure should be introduced, but successive Governments did not think it right to introduce it. There was a period when this was a major problem, when the creation of vacant and derelict land went on apeace.
The amendment, in relation to planning and the number of applications, is unacceptable to the Government. The proposal runs counter to one of the major proposals of the Bill, which is designed to decongest and speed up the development control machinery. For that reason alone I have to advise the House to resist the amendment.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Minister accept that what happens at the moment is that the statutory right of the Secretary of State for the Environment to determine whether a city centre development in a place such as Redbridge goes ahead or not is pre-empted when local authorities acquire properties and demolish and gut them in advance of a public inquiry?
Surely, if the Secretary of State intends that public inquiries should not be turned into farces the only way in which preemption can be prevented is for demolition to be made subject to planning consent. That would not slow things down. It would mean that at a public inquiry a decision could be taken without the property having previously been demolished. There would be no delay at all.

Mr. Fox: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says. There are certain attractions in the case that he has made. The Secretary of State has other safeguards in relation to the type of development the hon. Gentleman referred to, but I shall consider carefully what the hon. Member said and see whether there is anything that we can do in that direction.

Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 22

URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS

Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 246, in page 181, line 30, after 'locality', insert 'and community'.
I acknowledge straight away that we had a debate on a similar amendment on this subject in Committee. At that time the Minister who replied was from the


Scottish Office and I think that he thought that he was going to get away with it lightly. But that amendment led to a lengthy debate, because the interpretation of the word "locality" seemed to be taken rather more widely by the Department than by Opposition Members. In other words, I understand the word "locality" to mean land and buildings, and I understand the word "community" to mean people.
The Minister suggested that he had a wider definition in mind. However, it is only right to return to the subject on Report to ask that the word "community" should be added to the Bill or at least that a much greater undertaking be given to the House. It is important that members of the corporation are drawn from those who have a special knowledge of both the community—by which I mean the residents—and the locality. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to go a little further than he did before.

Mr. King: This debate relates to the appointing of members of the corporation who have special knowledge of the locality. The hon. Gentleman put the point extremely fairly. We discussed it in Committee. It is certainly not intended that the word "locality" applies purely to the physical location of the area. It is intended that it should apply to the local community. It is taken directly from the New Towns Act, where it has proved to be effective. It is felt that the new towns have achieved effective local representation.
In case there is any doubt, and while I cannot recommend acceptance of the amendment, I give the assurance from this Dispatch Box that the word "locality" is not intended to refer purely to land and buildings but is also intended to include the local community.

Mr. Ross: I wish that the Minister would accept the amendment. We talked about the New Towns Act earlier, yet we differ from that Act in this Bill. Here is a chance to go along with it, yet the Government do not take it.
I accept the Minister's undertaking. I just hope that he is in office long enough to make sure that it is adhered to. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 23

URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS: LAND

Amendment made: No. 328, in page 185, leave out lines 23 to 38.—[Mr. King.]

Mr. Fox: I beg to move amendment No. 332, in page 196, line 10, leave out from 'provision' to 'or' in line 12 and insert
'for an urban development area of services which would not otherwise be provided, or which would not otherwise be satisfactorily provided.'.
This is merely a technical amendment. The reference to
this Part of this Act
in line 12 of the existing version of paragraph 18 is ambiguous.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 331, in page 202, line 45, leave out first 'to' and insert 'and'.—[Mr. Fox.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 25

ENTERPRISE ZONES

Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 249, in page 210, line 1, after 'be', insert
'other than any part of that area to which an invitation or designation is already applicable'.
We are now considering that part of the Bill relating to enterprise zones. It is fairly clear that if the Bill becomes an Act, orders relating to enterprise zones will be made in the fairly near future. The question of urban development corporations may, however, take a little longer.
In Committee, the Government were asked what would happen if a local authority made application for an enterprise zone, was invited to draw up a scheme, did a lot of groundwork and subsequently the area concerned became subject to an urban development corporation. The Government were asked whether the local authority or the urban development corporation would then become the enterprise zone authority. The Government made it quite clear that in those circumstances the borough council would remain the enterprise zone authority, even though an urban development corporation had subsequently taken over the area. The amendment seeks to


ensure that if that position applies the Government cannot issue a subsequent invitation to the UDC, which is an authorised body under the schedule. I hope that the Government will write that provision into the Bill, if not by this amendment by some other suitable amendment.
I acknowledge that, unfortunately, even if the borough council is not invited, and does not produce a scheme, it is still open to the Government to invite a UDC to do so, if such a corporation is subsequently established. I deplore that fact. It is another matter, but it is related to the amendment. I hope that it will not occur. I hope that the Government will write into the Bill the assurance that was clearly given in Committee. That is the object of the amendment.

Mr. Fox: I can give the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) the assurance that he requests. The amendment is concerned with an enterprise zone within an urban development corporation. We discussed that matter in Committee. Before a statutory invitation is issued we shall seek the agreement of all the relevant bodies in the area. If we wish to invite a UDC to prepare a scheme, we shall especially seek the agreement of the local authorities. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that assurance.
A statutory invitation under paragraph 1 of the schedule will be issued only when we have reached an agreement with the body concerned about the details of the proposed zone. If the body concerned is a UDC, we expect it to seek the widest possible measure of agreement with the local authority. As we said in Committee, we are seeking co-operation, not competition, between the UDC and the local authority. We shall certainly stick to what I have said. I hope that, with that assurance, the hon. Gentleman will ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Spearing: I am not entirely happy with that answer. If the Minister wishes there to be no competition it would be easy for the sort of provision that I have suggested to be written into the Bill—if not by this amendment, by some other amendment. There are two or three

different sequences that can take place. If the Government are to seek the assent of a local authority before a UDC may be invited to establish an enterprise zone, it is clear that pressure might be put on it in other ways, under other provisions in the Bill, to give that assent.
It would give proper protection and a proper legal wording if the Government thought about the matter again and brought forth a suitable amendment in another place. I do not intend to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. I ask that it should be negatived, if that is the wish of the Government.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. King: I beg to move ammendment No. 250, in page 210, line 9, at end insert:
'(5A) The invitation may specify an area in which publicity is to be given under paragraph 2(2) (aa) below.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 252, 253 and 254.

Mr. King: The amendments respond to a request made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) in Committee about the advertising of a scheme for an enterprise zone. The point that he made fairly is that it is not of interest purely within the area of the enterprise zone because there may be interests in the surrounding areas which might consider that they are adversely affected. The Government accepted the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's amendment, although they were not able, at that time, to accept the detail, because it was not correct. We have now put that in a form that we believe to be correct. For Greater London it will be the Greater London area, for a district within a county it will be the county area, and for Scotland it will be a region.
There is an additional amendment in case the zone is on the edge of a county where a district might be affected. It gives the Secretary of State the power to describe a wider area for which publicity should be given. The amendment should command the support of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Graham: I beg to move amendment No. 251, in page 210, line 22, at end insert—
'any such scheme shall specify the planning criteria or limits applicable to any proposed development in the area concerned or any parts of that area and may include any other general conditions as the body may require'.
In the view of the Opposition this is the main debate that the House can have on the issue of enterprise zones. I begin by reiterating the point that the Opposition made plain in Committee—that our attitude to the enterprise zone concept remains severely critical and very sceptical.
I remind the House of the genesis of the enterprise zone idea. It was in a speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at a meeting on the Isle of Dogs. He said:
Independent countries like Hong Kong or Singapore have been entirely free to make themselves magnets for enterprise, with generally benevolent tax and customs regimes, freedom from exchange controls and an absence of unnecessary regulations and heavy social or other obligations on commercial industry.
In Committee, Labour Members constantly pressed the Government to be more specific about the kinds of activities that they envisaged would be allowed inside the zones and, more importantly, the kinds of activities that would be excluded.
In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said something that made us very uneasy. When he was pressed on the different planning relaxations in different enterprise zones, he said:
It is bound to follow that the local authority which has planned the operation to the greatest extent and has the least restrictions will gain most. However, that should not surprise us because it is the object of the exercise."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 21 May 1980; c. 1334.]
Taken against the background of the idea and the philosophy in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, this makes us very uneasy. We fear that the spirit of it is to jettison as many so-called restrictions as possible. That is why we seek in our amendment to impose some order and some restraint on the freedoms which are sought in this idea.
In Committee, speech after speech implied that it was because of compliance with planning and building controls, and because of compliance with or a need

to comply with health and safety regulations, that, somehow or other, a burden had been imposed on embryo economic activity which in many cases had prevented it from coming to fruition. What a lame excuse for some of the failures of British business. In our view, it is far too simplistic to suggest that all industry needs is freedom to operate in order that wealth will be created, that jobs will be created and that all will be well.
British industry has been notably unsuccessful in the past in its attempts to manage and invest for the long-term benefit of the British economy. Arguably, British industry is responsible for much of the weakening of the economy that has taken place. It is responsible for poor management, for missed opportunities, for a lack of reinvestment, for shifting investment abroad by multinational companies, and for high unemployment while British business has been restructuring, amalgamating, taking over and closing.
On this issue, as on the urban development corporations issue, our scepticism has been echoed by others. The Town Planning Institute has it about right when it says:
Industry is primarily concerned to make a financial profit. It can only satisfy social, environmental and community considerations where these are coincidental to its main aim—or when it is required by law to do so.
The Government need to be reminded that in inner city areas there are a number of historical disadvantages—poor access to sites, small and difficult sites, a lack of room for expansion, a poor environment, old and unsuitable buildings—and the Government ought to give better credit than they have to the valuable groundwork that has already been done by councils.
We believe that in terms of reducing the planning controls and removing restrictions, at the very least there is a risk that the enterprise zone concept will produce buildings which in themselves will be unattractive, and whole areas which have a second-rate environment because nobody has the responsibility for trying to ensure that people can live and work in pleasant conditions. Who, for instance, will take responsibility for urging that housing will be a feature of enterprise zones? Yes, housing, for those who work in the zones will need to have roots. Are enterprise zones designed to


be ghost towns at night? Are they merely to be factory estates that will be open from 9 am to 5 pm, and thereafter become dead towns?
If the discipline of planning in enterprise zones is to be reduced, curtailed or minimised, the planners will have few opportunities to ameliorate the effects of incompatibility in mixed-use situations. The conflicts between users will remain. The conflicts about access, parking and site problems will flourish. In our view, enterprise zones are a direct attack on planning controls and public participation in planning. They endanger the right of the public to examine all planning proposals, to put their objections to the local authority and to seek an inquiry if they wish. If an enterprise zone builds in safeguards, the amount of time taken for the safeguards that we would like would negate the enterprise zone concept, with its emphasis on speeding up bureacratic procedures.
I am worried about the effect of enterprise zones on the borders. We have the problem of designating the areas. I wish to talk about the problems that will exist on the periphery of the designated zones—the shadow areas outside the lines drawn on a map. I am sorry that the Minister is temporarily absent, as he has assiduously attended our proceedings. The Minister and the Under-Secretary will recall that in Committee I used my knowledge of the situation in Glasgow and on Merseyside to illustrate the problem of the border areas. On Clydeside, the Co-operative Insurance Society, with a large investment of capital, and with a property developer, has invested millions of pounds in developing the Clydebank town centre and creating many jobs. Its investment is geared to conforming with strict planning criteria, but it will have no access to the financial inducements that are offered to those who will operate in the adjacent enterprise zone. Can the Minister add to his sympathetic response to my representations at that time? I remind the Minister of the helpful remarks of the Under-Secretary of State when I referred to the fears of large investors such as the Co-operative Insurance Society and the Birkenhead Co-operative Society on Merseyside. He said:
We have no wish to create embarrassments for example, in Clydebank, for institutions currently investing in shopping and similar

facilities. Neither in drawing the physical boundaries of enterprise zones, nor in agreeing the details of schemes is it our intention to put anyone currently investing in the area out of business. We recognise and take on board the problems that hypermarkets may involve."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D: 15 May 1980, c. 1135.]
Will the Minister say now how such potentially conflicting interests will be reconciled, and will he say whether enterprise zone criteria specify activities to be included and excluded?
Our amendment will abate some of the dubious claims for enterprise zones, but the problems of inner city areas must be tackled seriously, not used as a cover for social experimentation. The enterprise zone concept is concerned more with ideology and politics than with economic realism. The key factors holding up industrial development are not taxation or planning restriction. What Britain needs, and what these areas need, is a planned growth in the national economy, continued effort by local and national government to sustain small and medium businesses, the encouragement of bringing in grass root endeavours by co-operatives, and, above all, the avoidance of throwing Britain back into the past by diminishing the hard-won advances made by organised labour, the community and environmentalists. Our amendment seeks to restrain the damaging excesses that are so clearly inherent in the schedule. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Rippon: I think that on this occasion the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) has been less than fair to the concept of an enterprise zone. It is an extremely imaginative proposal, which has commended itself to many people. On the other hand, it can be said that the concept has not yet been thoroughly thought through. It is regrettable from many points of view that it has been inserted at a late stage so that there has been no Second Reading. There is only a two-line clause on which the complex schedule is founded. That cannot be regarded as satisfactory. It is clear that we shall not have an adequate opportunity tonight to raise many of the technical problems which the schedule raises—for example, the tax concept to which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) referred.
It is admitted that these enterprise zones are an experiment. In the words of the Minister in Committee, it will be an


extremely expensive experiment, so there are to be only half a dozen sites of about 500 acres. But if it is to be an experiment, let us try to get it right in the beginning.
I regret that, for example, there is no procedure for the consideration of any application by a local authority. It is entirely up to the Secretary of State whom he invites to prepare an enterprise scheme.
The local authorities that are chosen will be in a very favourable position. Those who work and carry on business in an enterprise zone will receive important tax benefits, which will have some effect on the surrounding areas.
The theory behind the concept of the enterprise zone is valuable, and it is one that I share. In many areas industry and commerce need to be stimulated by the removal of what the Minister described in Committee as
a proliferation of controls, regulations and requirements imposed on industry and commerce in this country…As a result, Governments have been driven to a whole range of additional stimuli—incentives, subsidies, regional aids and various other measures to reinvigorate those sectors.
The Minister referred to the original idea, which was put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech on the Isle of Dogs. In Committee, my right hon. Friend said:
The simple concept that my right hon. and learned Friend put forward was the alternative approach that if one could free industry and commerce from much of the bureaucracy and complication surrounding them, this might obviate the need for artificial stimuli, and industry could flourish in a climate more readily indentified in certain other countries.
I agree with that concept, but I would not suggest that it should be limited to five or so areas of a total of about 3,000 acres.

Mr. Spearing: We cannot afford any more.

Mr. Rippon: My reservations about the enterprise zones are limited to the drafting of schedule 25 as it stands.
10.30 pm
I believe that it must be accepted that the Government's views on how more relaxed forms of planning can be operated are not very clear. They appear to be based on broad land use planning.

In Committee the Minister said that there would be arrangements that would:
allow all types of inoffensive development to go ahead quickly without rigmarole.
Although such development would be subject to building controls,
if there is some form of limited zoning or whatever it may be, thereafter it will be a very simplified procedure "—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 15 May 1980; c. 1165–72.]
I believe that that needs to be put in a statute, with more particularity than exists at present.
If land use zoning is all that is intended, all that the planning provisions of a free enterprise zone come to is the production of the equivalent of a proposals map, normally contained in a local plan, with two things missing. First, one will not have to have regard to conformity with any structure plan. Secondly, there will be an absence of the normal statutory provisions. If that is what is intended, it should be clearly stated in the Act. It is fundamental to the enterprise zone that people should know just how the planning procedures will be carried out.
If I look at another aspect of taxation, as did the right hon. Member for Down, South, I feel some concern over the provision concerning rates. Tax relief will be an important concession that the Secretary of State will be able to make in a particular area. As I understand it, the rates on property in an enterprise zone are to be so organised that every hereditament is to be exempt, except for a restrictively designed class, predominantly the dwelling house. That will be an expensive provision, as the Minister suggested. It is wider than it need be. It covers all existing, as well as all new, development. It covers hereditaments used for any purpose; for example, betting shops and off-licences. We are not dealing with Hong Kong or Singapore, where there can be special tax arrangements. The owner of a betting shop or off-licence could move to an enterprise zone, and be in a favourable position compared with competitors only a few yards away.
Enterprise zones are an excellent idea, but if we are not careful many of the criticisms made in Committee will prove all too correct. First, there will be not necessarily an increase in activity but


simply relocation of businesses, as I mentioned. Secondly, I am concerned that there appears to be no provision for infrastructure costs. A 500-acre area with special arrangements cannot be established without considering how to deal with infrastructure costs. Finally, if we are not careful, the scheme will simply attract mobile development, which can take immediate advantage of the enterprise zone, rather than the labour intensive undertakings that are so necessary in many areas.
More fundamentally, one could say that enterprise zones are the carrot and urban development corporations the stick of this movement of central Government towards control of local administration. I hope that at any rate in another place the Government will give serious consideration to the detailed provisions of clause 25 so that we can restrict the powers of the Secretary of State and his degree of control of these schemes, which have not yet been as carefully thought out as they need to be.

Mr. Mikardo: The speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) has fully substantiated his claim that the provisions for enterprise zones have not been thought through at all. He raised many questions. With his great knowledge, he could have raised many more had he wished to devote more time to the matter. The Government have not even attempted to answer these numerous questions. Today's debate and the debates in Committee on enterprise zones have been conducted in a penumbric cloud of hypothesis. The question whether enterprise zones are—in the words of "1066 and All That "—"a good thing", will depend on the conditions applied to them.
The right hon. and learned Member reminded us that one of the Government's objectives was to enable people to act without the controls and regulations that are imposed on others. The issue hinges on what controls and regulations people will be relieved of. The right hon. and learned Gentleman reminded us that the Chancellor of the Exchequer first mooted the idea in a speech that he made on the Isle of Dogs. He held out Hong Kong and Singapore as shining examples of what he would like to see developed on the Isle of Dogs. I hope that he is not suggesting that children should work more

than 50 hours a week, as they do in Hong Kong. I also hope that he is not suggesting that any resident of the Isle of Dogs that criticises a Minister should, as in Singapore, automatically go to gaol without trial.
The Isle of Dogs was in my constituency before a redistribution of parliamentary boundaries pushed me a few hundred yards to the north. At that time there was a factory on the Isle of Dogs that emitted a powder with a highly noxious lead compound. It distributed that powder, among other places, across a primary school playground. I do not know whether anything would have been done to prevent such emissions in Hong Kong or Singapore. I hope that the regulations that prevent noxious gases from being spread over playgrounds will also apply to enterprise zones.
I have deliberately chosen exaggerated examples, as I accept that such things are unlikely to happen. Where is the line to be drawn? Any judgment about enterprise zones must depend on whether they are to be relieved of their obligations to protect those who work and live in them, and to maintain environmental conditions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke at length. Indeed, if he had had time I am sure he would have spoken about other matters. He spoke about relief from normal planning regulations. That could be damaging. As he suggested, serious environmental damage might ensue. Relief from planning regulations might benefit an entrepreneur, but it would not benefit those living round the factory.
There is nothing to suggest that only planning regulations will be lifted. What about health and safety regulations? Will anybody be relieved of them? What about the regulations that prevent the emission of noxious substances. The Alkali Inspectorate looks at such emissions all the time. What about smoke in an otherwise smokeless zone? What about pollution of rivers and canals by industrial effluent? Is there to be relief from all controls and regulations? We do not know, because the Government have said nothing one way or the other. They are keeping mum.
This is a matter on which we must be vigilant. We are not in a position


to make a final judgment. When reading the Committee proceedings, I got the impression that members of the Committee shared that view. We shall have to monitor events to find out what is allowed in enterprise zones and what effects that has.
There have been references to the Isle of Dogs. I understand that there have been two bids for an enterprise zone there—one from the London borough of Tower Hamlets and one from an urban development corporation that has managed to put in a bid even though it does not exist. By some subterfuge—I am sure that if it had happened under a Labour Government the Daily Mail and the Daily Expresswould have been screaming their heads off—a development corporation that does not exist has put in a bid in competition with that entered by the London borough of Tower Hamlets. What is the Government's attitude to that?
If there is to be an enterprise zone, and if the handling of the zone is to be a delicate matter, would it not be better for it to be handled by those who know the area, operate there, administer the area, are accountable to the people who live in the area, and can be called to account by them if there are deleterious, let alone dangerous, effects?
The Government owe us a duty to give the House their view of competition between a local authority and an urban development corporation in an enterprise zone. The Under-Secretary is a great example of one who does not give anything away and does not say much, but I hope that he will not run away from his serious obligation to give a specific answer to the question.

Mr. Ogden: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) in asking the Under-Secretary to use the opportunity presented by the debate to give us as much information as he can. I hope that it will not cause the hon. Gentleman trouble if I say that there are times when he is helpful and enjoys giving information to individual hon. Members or to the House. However, there are other times when his answers are perfect parliamentary replies, accurate and concise

but tell us nothing that we did not know before. I hope that tonight he will tell us something that we did not know before.
If some of my questions were asked and answered in Committee, I can only say that that is not the same as questions being asked on the Floor of the House and hon. Members being given more up-to-date information. I hope that the House will excuse me if I am parochial, but my direct concern is the possibility of an enterprise zone inside the city boundaries of Liverpool, or perhaps in Bootle, or extending across the Mersey.
10.45 pm
The answer to a simple question would save a lot of time of the House and hon. Members would be able to get home earlier. I have to assume, however, that the answer will come later. From the information available the proposals for a Merseyside enterprise zone are that it would either be located in the dockland inner city centre or near the airport. If the zone is to be located in or near the city centre along the waterfront, a city would be created within a city. It would be an enterprise zone within an urban development corporation, which, again, would be within an inner city area, or an outer city area. There would be an enterprise zone, an urban development corporation, an inner city partnership, a city and a metropolitan county. That represents tier upon tier upon tier.
The situation might arise in which one tobacco factory, British American Tobacco, was within the free enterprise zone and enjoyed advantages over another tobacco factory, called Ogden's—I have no relationship with it, unfortunately—which was located slightly outside the zone. A Merseyside bank with its headquarters "downtown", as we say, inside the free enterprise zone, or inside the urban development corporation, or inside the city, would be competing for the same market with another bank slightly outside. One small firm established in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry), Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn), Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw), Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller), and Birkenhead (Mr. Field) would be competing against firms carrying on the same busi


ness slightly outside the zone. That would be one set of difficulties that the Government or the creators of the enterprise zone would have to meet if they were to establish the zone in that part of Merseyside.
There is sometimes a misunderstanding that the free enterprise zone is a duty-free zone. I should be grateful if the Minister would make clear that the zone will not be another Shannon airport.
The second suggestion for the enterprise zone is that it should be based on Speke airport, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Thornton) and near the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes). Anyone who studies the geography of the area knows that one of the limitations of Liverpool airport is that some time after the original runways were laid down an industrial area and a housing area were located directly in line with places where the second, third and fourth runways should have been added. If a potential 500-acre zone were to be created, one motor car company would be competing on very favourable terms against another motor car company outside the zone.

Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman makes a useful point. Is not the whole truth that wherever the zone is decided on Merseyside, it will set one area up against another. It means that one area that is deprived will be set against another.

Mr. Ogden: I agree with the principle. We could have used the same argument against intermediate areas, development areas, special development grey areas and all the rest. They are wider geographically and the difficulties do not arise. There are natural boundaries between one area and another. I would prefer the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) not to refer to deprived zones. There are areas with difficulties, as hon. Members know. There is little point in urging people to come to Merseyside because it is busy, lively and active and working like the clappers of hell but saying, at the same time, that it is a deprived zone and depressed. That is not the way to view the situation.

Mr. Alton: rose—

Mr. Ogden: The hon. Gentleman can make his speech in his own way. We probably want the same things in this debate, whatever else we may disagree upon.
When the Government come up with the idea of creating an enterprise zone, hon. Members should recall that only 15 months ago they were elected on the basis of encouraging enterprise, not in a particular zone of 500 acres but all over the country. The result in Merseyside is that the banks are supporting more industry than the previous Labour Government ever did. That is a simple fact. The banks' profits are going in not taking up the debts owed by individuals. The pressure on Merseyside has passed the big companies, such as Plessey, Lucas, Meccano and Dunlop. The pressure is on the small company that is attracted to the inner city and that employs between 20 and 100 people. Such firms receive more support from the banks than from Government.
The Government came in 15 months ago with a promise. It has not been fulfilled. What hope is there that this new idea of an enterprise zone, with all its complications, will do half as much as the Government promised 15 months ago?

Mr. Alfred Dubs: It is a strong possibility that an enterprise zone will be established in the London borough of Wandsworth and therefore that my constituency will have an enterprise zone. It is clear that there is a desperate need for more jobs in Wandsworth, as in many other parts of inner London. To the extent that financial incentives will bring more jobs to an inner city area, I welcome any scheme to provide more work. The real test is how an enterprise zone creates jobs compared with the existing powers of local authorities and other bodies to create jobs without enterprise zones.
In my constituency the previous Labour-controlled council established at Havelock Terrace a number of small units, which are now thriving. They are examples of what can be done if a local authority provides accommodation and local small businesses take up the available space. That was done under existing powers. It was done by the local authority performing an enabling function.
Traditionally, local authorities are not much good at such activities because they are normally involved in low-risk activities. Encouraging employment is a high-risk activity. To compound that, local authorities have been short of the powers to create the type of employment necessary. I can understand why the Government want to do something to give a boost to creating jobs. If the Government's aim is to provide a good mix of jobs from the skilled to the unskilled, enterprise zones might be successful. However, I doubt whether enterprise zones will be that successful.
I fear that enterprise zones will create relatively few jobs compared with the number that could be created on the same valuable land by other methods. I fear that the emphasis will be on unskilled jobs rather than on the mix of jobs that is desirable and that could be achieved if local authorities had enough power to devise the type of employment opportunities that they have begun to devise in recent years.
The danger is that if local authorities lose control of development, offices, hypermarkets, warehouses and more antisocial developments will emerge, and will be disadvantageous to residents. What happens if there is a proliferation of office development on enterprise zone land? That could increase land values and drive out the opportunities for creating the type of work that will provide the jobs that the inner city areas need.
The Government are taking a risk. Enterprise zones are unlikely to deliver the goods. At least if the amendment were accepted we should leave local authorities with some opportunity to continue to have a useful influence on the type of jobs created.

Mr. Robert Litherland: The debates in Committee and in the Chamber have been about the type of industry that will be attracted to an enterprise zone. Enterprise zones have been referred to as magnets of prosperity, but in whose interest will that prosperity be? Will that prosperity mean a good financial return on capital, or will it bring jobs and security of employment to an area?
Manchester city council, which has agreed to join the Trafford, Salford and Greater Manchester councils in pressing

for an enterprise zone, is concerned about the type of industry and enterprise that could have a detrimental, rather than beneficial, effect on the surrounding area. Enterprise zones will need to be judged on the benefits to the local economy and not just on the zone itself.
Manchester city council supported the basic aim of arresting the decline of manufacturing industry in the area. That area, a large industrial complex once known as the workshop of the world, employed about 80,000 workers, many thousands of whom were skilled in various manufacturing processes, not least in engineering. Those days are over, and the loss of those industries and skilled workers has left barren wasteland in the Trafford area.
The idea that an enterprise zone will fill that vacuum is a pipe-dream. Local authorities, even in the current economic climate, and clutching at straws, are sure that enterprise zones are not a panacea. Enterprise zones must be complementary to neighbouring authorities, or there will be conflict.
If hypermarkets are the order of the day, and if retailing is encouraged, that could have a detrimental effect on Manchester. Concern is already being expressed in the city about negotiations between the Manchester Ship Canal Company and the firm Hypermarket Holdings. Manchester, Salford and Trafford councils have warned that if a deal for the lease of 23 acres of land at Broadway, Trafford Road goes through there will be objections from the established retail centres in the adjoining region.
Retail centres will be competing on unfavourable terms with hypermarkets in an enterprise zone. Already within the existing retail centres there is competition for custom. The Arndale centre in Manchester competes with the Longsight centre, which in turn competes with the Moss Side and Wythenshawe centres. New centres are already being planned, and that is wrong because one centre will take custom away from another. One area will vie with another, and the enterprise zone will defeat the purpose for which it was established.
New centres are already being planned within the city boundaries and they will all try to attract retail custom. If hypermarkets are allowed in an enterprise


zone, that will have a detrimental effect on existing trade. That is the point that I am trying to make. They will not assist the region one iota. Retailing and warehousing will supply only a limited number of jobs, and they will be mainly for unskilled workers. The surrounding authorities must have a proper and legitimate say in what goes to make up the enterprise zone. Even with manufacturing industry there will be competition between authorities.
Liverpool has been pointed out as having a vast inner city area problem. It enjoys development area status, and there are now proposals for an urban development corporation. The chairman designate of that corporation has said that careful planning is essential and that they must get it right first time. Yet, in the same area, there is a proposal for an enterprise zone that will compete with the urban development corporation and the city council. There could well be conflict between an authority with inner city problems, an urban development corporation calling for careful planning and an enterprise zone offering all its concessions.
Manchester has lost its development area status. It has massive inner city problems, and yet it is proposed to establish an enterprise zone in the adjacent Trafford area. Sandwiched between the two is Warrington new town which, already, has had the effect of creaming off the unskilled workers from the inner city areas. Even with manufacturing industry, there could be conflict between Liverpool, Manchester, Warrington new town and Trafford for limited skilled labour.
11 pm
We must consider what enterprise zones are about. If they do not bring in jobs, they will have failed. If they bring in new privileges for the employers at the expense of workers, they will have failed. If the Government think that enterprise zones will bring back large, skilled manufacturing industries to the North-West, that is nonsense. I have grave reservations about enterprise zones. I feel that they will attract the type of development that will be detrimental, rather than beneficial, to the region. Major new retail development should not

be allowed, and consultation with the local authorities is essential.
The Trafford and Salford docks area consists mainly of manufacturing, warehousing, retailing, and related activities. In spite of the decline, it provides about 40,000 jobs, and many of those employees are from the inner city partnership area. Therefore, at present, it is complementary to, rather than in competition with, the Manchester city centre in terms of job opportunities. The Manchester and Salford inner city partnership gives top priority to strengthening the economy of the area. That is one of the reasons why it accepts enterprise zone status, with all its incentives and inducements directly serving the partnership area. But it must be beneficial to the region as a whole, and that is why it views the introduction of major new retail developments with great concern.

Mr. Alton: One can only have a certain sense of déja vu, having been through the same sort of debate earlier when we discussed urban development corporations. Many of the same arguments apply now as applied then—for example, the question of control and duplication between the different agencies that are trying to tackle the problems of the inner cities and the North-West region, to which the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) just referred.
I begin by reminding the House of the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who, during the debate on the Finance (No. 2) Bill, said:
We approve of this move with considerable reservations and questions."—[Official Report, 4 June 1980; Vol, 985, c. 1456.]
One can only feel a certain sense of reservation when looking at the enterprise zone idea. When the Chancellor introduced this idea during his Budget Statement, my right hon. Friend said that we were very pleased that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had that idea, and we hoped that he would have other ideas on other occasions in order to determine what the objectives of the enterprise zones would be. Sadly, during our debates on this Bill those definitions have not been laid out clearly before the House.
I want to draw the attention of the House to the Association of Independent Businesses, which, after all, is not a radical body of Socialists or Liberals—

Mr. Ogden: They are not Tories, for that matter.

Mr. Alton: —or even Tories. It outlines 12 separate reservations, of which there are four key points. First, it said that the objectives should be clarified to permit evaluation of enterprise zones. Clearly, the Bill does not ensure that enterprise zones will be properly evaluated, and we shall not know whether they are doing a reasonable job in the areas for which they have been set up to deal.
Secondly, the association said that reliefs should be available only for new trading developments, and that relocation to an enterprise zone should be prohibited. In other words, people should not be able to move into an enterprise zone once it had been established. Clearly, if that were allowed, it would provide an opportunity for speculators and others to abuse the status that an enterprise zone is presumably there to confer on firms that are having a difficult time.
Thirdly, it says that reliefs should be available only to new firms, or to firms employing fewer than 100 people. Here again, the association is saying that the enterprise zones should be there to help small businesses—a point which the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) made earlier.
Fourthly, the association feels that the enterprise zones should be more extensive than is presently proposed. That is extremely important, because there is a great danger that if the enterprise zones are so small, as has been indicated by the Chancellor and the Minister, it will mean that their purpose will be detracted from by their size. They will not be able to take in the whole scope of urban deprivation in the areas where they are established.
I tried to intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for West Derby to say that it seemed curious that the Government should say that regional grants would not be applied on the basis that they were applied previously but that it would be better to ensure that they went only to the restricted areas where they were needed and where they would de the most good. Yet they are using the converse argument about the establishment of enterprise zones. Precisely the opposite will happen. The establishment of enterprise zones will ensure that some

areas have a far greater commercial and competitive advantage than other areas. I shall use the word "deprivation", despite the remarks of the hon. Member for West Derby. Where an enterprise zone is established adjacent to an area of deprivation, the area that includes the enterprise zone will have a distinct advantage over the other area. Inevitably, some businesses will close and move into the enterprise zone area, where they will be rate-free. That takes up the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), who is experienced in those matters as a former Secretary of State for the Environment. I am surprised by the disdain shown on the Government Benches for the words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. On the question of urban development corporations and enterprise zones he made some telling points, yet his words were dismissed as irrelevant by the Government Front Bench.
The Government should take four key points into account before establishing the enterprise zones. First, wherever the boundary of such an area is drawn, there will be those who feel aggrieved that the special advantages enjoyed by others are denied to them. That experiment could accentuate the degree of discrimination felt by those outside the zone. There is a need not only to delineate boundaries with the greatest of care, but to remain constantly aware of the possible adverse effects that the experiment may have on other areas, notably those adjacent to the zones.
Secondly, the enterprise zones are intended to exist for 10 years. Such a time scale demands that rapid decisions are taken once an area has been designated, or the dispensations will not be available to the developers. The consultation paper proposes that the advantages enjoyed by enterprise zones should end immediately on the expiration of the 10-year period. That sharp change could cause severe difficulties for a company only recently established and perhaps existing on the margin of profitability. It would be desirable to have a phased transition from enterprise zone status to current conditions elsewhere. I hope that the Minister will consider that point when he replies.
Thirdly, given the dispensations available in the enterprise zones, it must be accepted that land values would be likely


to rise, although the extent and timing of any such rise would obviously vary according to the circumstances. It follows that some of the fiscal and other concessions offered within the zones will benefit existing landlords.
Fourthly, the consultation paper proposes that the relevant local authority or development corporation should draw up a plan for each zone before designation. The speed with which the plans are drawn will be crucial, and the precise elements of each plan will be equally important. Some local authorities may wish to control the types of employment attracted by the new development. They may wish to restrict the size and type of individual new buildings or to exclude certain types of development because of the adverse affect that they may have on areas outside the zones—a point that I tried to make earlier. Such restrictions would negate the whole purpose of the experiment, and would be a considerable disincentive to those trying to bring about development. The extent to which local authorities may feel it necessary to specify reserved matters will no doubt be one of the factors taken into account in the selection of the most suitable site for enterprise zones.
The creation of enterprise zones will be a worthwhile experiment, and one that Liberal Members accept. We believe that the principle is a very good one as long as it is approached in a flexible way and the difficulties are firmly tackled from the outset.
Enterprise zones must not be seen as an end in themselves, nor should they become so autonomous or so unaccountable that local authorities feel threatened by their existence—the point that we were trying to bring out earlier in the debate about urban development corporations. There is already quite sufficient conflict between the county councils and the district councils without creating another incompatible relationship.

Mr. Churchill: I trust that in the course of the debate my right hon. and hon. Friends will have noticed those hon. Members who do not wish to have enterprise zones established in their constituencies and will therefore give added weight to the claims of those who do.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) suggested that

there would be no panacea solution to the problems of Trafford Park or Manchester through the proposed enterprise zone to be established in Trafford Park and Salford. I would not dissent from him in that. Nobody suggests that enterprise zones are in any way a panacea. But there is every reason to believe that they are an important and exciting experiment which will play a significant part in bringing back industry, enterprise and jobs to the areas that have had established industry over many years and have lost it in the course of time through the operation of industrial and urban policies of successive Governments that in my judgment have been nothing short of disastrous. They have been designed to deny new lifeblood to the industry of the established areas—and new blood for the improvement of old industrial and urban areas—by driving industry out into green field areas, at great expense to the taxpayer.
I am glad that that phase in our national development is over and that it is recognised to have been a wrong policy. I warmly commend the Government for their decision to try to bring new industry and new lifeblood into the older areas.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Central said that in its heyday Trafford Park employed 80,000 men. Today the figure is down to about 40,000. A large number of those jobs were lost in the course of the 1960s. In the course of the 1970s this was largely stabilised but unless there is some new policy such as is provided by the Government there will once again be a new phase of massive redundancies.

Mr. Ogden: The hon. Gentleman is making the speech that he made 15 months ago. All the things that he is saying tonight are the things that he was saying at the hustings 15 months ago, except that then they were to apply to the whole country. Now he is saying that they will apply only to the enterprise zones. There is a contrast between what the Conservative Government promised for the whole country 15 months ago and what they are now saying about the free enterprise zones.

Mr. Churchill: I could not disagree more with the hon. Member. This is an important experiment, which could have applications in relation to even greater


experiments by the Government for reducing the planning requirements and the tax burden on industry. But that is in no sense at the expense of the Government's policy, over the period of a Parliament, of reducing the burden of bureaucracy and the burden of taxation, which is really the only way of getting free enterprise and industry working on a large scale in this country once again.

Mr. Cant: I should have thought that the rising decibel level would have discouraged me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but everything now seems to have gone very quiet. In Committee, I supported the concept of enterprise zones, and I was a lonely voice on the Opposition Benches. As I always seem to make a stronger and stronger bid for unpopularity, I repeat my stance on the matter now.
11.15 pm
Like many of my hon. Friends, I am extremely worried that this concept is a consequence of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had an idea. That may almost be fatal to the enterprise itself. But I am intrigued by the element of ambivalence that has crept in about the concept. My right hon. and hon. Friends are suggesting that ideologically this is a pernicious idea, which should be suppressed at birth, but looking over their shoulders they think of their constituency interests and they begin to qualify their total opposition. When they go home to their constituencies, they often find that local councils have already been asking the regional offices of the Department of the Environment how they can be put on the list. I have been embarrassed by such an occurrence.
There is an element of uncertainty about the future. My hon. Friends have painted the picture in terms of extremism, rather vivid contrasts, and as stark black and white, but that is not the case. Many of my hon. Friends have also suggested that the fact that planning rules will not be applied will mean a total collapse of standards. They have suggested that the buildings will be substandard. If this scheme gets off the ground the dilution of standards will not be conspicuous, because in these days architects and developers do not build substandard buildings.
We should also consider the roads and the general development of the area. I do not think that the standards will be different from those in a normal estate. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) was concerned about whether the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Employment Protection Act 1975 would apply. Of course they will apply, so we have the necessary safeguards there.
The attraction of this concept—I share some of the doubts about the lack of preparation—is that most Labour Members can point to substantial areas of land in their constituencies where it is almost inconceivable that development will ever take off unless something different from the pattern of local authority building takes place.

Mr. Ogden: What will be the difference?

Mr. Cant: Some of the development that has taken place in industrial areas in the past has been dependent on financial incentives offered by local authorities. The great Michelin works, in my constituency, which now employs 8,000 or 10,000 people, was attracted to Stoke-on-Trent by substantial benefits of the type envisaged in this package.
There are difficult problem areas. They are not vast regions of the country; they are in the cities in which we live. If the Government are prepared, with certain conditions, to offer financial incentives, despite the fact that they will produce distortions in the market, I think that for a time—five years or a decade—we should try them. The possibility of gain far outweighs the prospect of disaster.
We sometimes talk about moving money sideways, and so on, but this will be new money. It will enlarge the public sector borrowing requirement and involve the Government in printing money to try to offer a little inducement to get the country going again.

Mr. Fox: It is not for the first time that I follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant). In Committee, there were many such occasions, However, I have never listened to him with as much pleasure as I have done tonight. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will agree that his is the only sane commentary that we have


heard from the Opposition Benches, in the sense that he has responded to the adventurous proposals that we are making. Opposition Members seem to imagine that we are imposing enterprise zones on local authorities. The truth is that they have to make the bids in the first place.
Despite the lukewarm reception by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) in initiating the debate, strong interest has been shown in our proposals for enterprise zones. Twenty-four district authorities and London boroughs have put in formal proposals. I shall list the authorities concerned: Northern region—Newcastle, Gateshead, North Tyneside, South Tyneside, Sunderland, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough and Stockton-on-Tees; North-Western region—Liverpool, Salford and Trafford; Yorkshire and Humberside—Sheffield and Wakefield; East Midlands—Corby; West Midlands—Wolverhampton and Dudley; London—Islington, Hammersmith, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Wandsworth; South-West region—Bristol. Telford development corporation has also put forward a proposal for an enterprise zone within the new town. The chairman designate of the Dockland UDC has said that he would like to see an enterprise zone established in Dockland. We are considering that proposal, together with the application from Tower Hamlets. All these proposals are being considered with a view to making an announcement before the Summer Recess.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Has my hon. Friend noticed that virtually all the areas that are to have this considerable benefit are represented by Opposition Members? Has he also noticed that the general tenor of their comments tonight has been that they do not like enterprise zones, that they will not work, but that if there are to be any they want them in their constituencies?

Mr. Fox: The one thing that the localities that I have mentioned have in common is that they all have areas of about 500 acres that will be suitable.
It seems that the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) starts from a different point of view. As I read the amendment—it is not entirely clear—it requires the scheme to specify the

criteria or limits applying to any proposed development. Presumably any proposed development that was not caught by one or other of the criteria or limitations would receive planning permission.
We take a different approach. Any development that is not specified in the scheme as having planning permission will not get permission. For example, if scrapyards are not mentioned, scrapyards are not given permission by the scheme. That approach should be simpler to implement and it will provide a necessary failsafe mechanism.
The hon. Members for Edmonton and Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) asked me about the general planning principles that we would like to see applied in enterprise zones. As we have made clear, any controls needed for health, safety or pollution will continue to apply. Secondly, there may need to be restrictions to protect the environment in other respects—for example, existing residential areas or historic buildings.
With these broad exceptions we want to see the maximum possible freedom given to investors to develop these areas as they consider best. The House will understand that it is not possible to be more specific until we have had detailed discussions with each of the authorities concerned on the planning proposals for each area.

Mr. Dubs: The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned employment protection specifically. Is employment protection legislation to apply in these areas?

Mr. Fox: Of course. I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
In each instance proposals will have to be tailored to meet particular problems in each area. The essence of our approach is clear, namely, that enterprise zones are an experiment in freedom. As the scheme is an experiment, we must accept, as the local authorities concerned will have accepted, that there will be both advantages and disadvantages in the planning relaxation in the enterprise zones. We shall be able to judge the net effect only when the experiment has been tried. It is clear that not every area will be suitable for experimentation. That is why most of the short list of candidates—the


sites—are in areas with such serious problems that enterprise zones can scarcely do anything but improve matters. All the authorities have volunteered.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) referred to certain existing problems. Designation orders will be required. The orders can be debated in the House. The issues that the hon. Gentleman wishes to be taken into account can be considered fully in that way. The bid from his area does not come from the inner city area that he described.
I listened carefully to the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). We shall consider his misgivings at a later stage. He is concerned especially about schedule 25. I thank him for his imaginative response and welcome to the proposals despite his misgivings.
It is right that two bids have been submitted from the constituency of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow. The hon. Gentleman should be thankful. That is an indication that there are some in the constituency who recognise the opportunities rather more than the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Mikardo: I did not ask the hon. Gentleman whether there were two bids. I told him that there were two bids.

The question that he has signally failed to answer concerns the attitude of the Department when it receives two bids, one from a local authority and another from an urban development corporation.

Mr. Fox: The chairman designate of the London UDC has put in a bid. That will be considered along with the others. That includes the bid from Tower Hamlets.
The purpose of the zones is to test as an experiment on a few sites how far industrial and commercial activity can be encouraged by the removal of fiscal burdens and other measures.
11.30 pm
I am surprised that hon. Gentlemen do not see this as an exciting experiment that can make a contribution, perhaps to regenerating this country. If it succeeds—and we are talking about half a dozen schemes—we ought to give it our blessing and hope that many more zones will be announced in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. Graham: The House has listened to one of the most inadequate responses to a major debate that it has heard for a long time. In view of the Minister's inadequate reply, I have no alternative but to press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 284.

Division No. 402] 
AYES
[11.30 pm


Abse, Leo
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Adams, Allen
Cohen, Stanley
Eadie, Alex


Allaun, Frank
Coleman, Donald
Eastham, Ken


Alton, David
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)


Anderson, Donald
Conlan, Bernard
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cook, Robin F.
English, Michael


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cowans, Harry
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Ashton, Joe
Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Crowther, J. S.
Evans, John (Newton)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cryer, Bob
Faulds, Andrew


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cunliffe, Lawrence
Field, Frank


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Flannery, Martin


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dalyell, Tam
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bidwell, Sydney
Davidson, Arthur
Ford, Ben


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Forrester, John


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Foster, Derek


Bradley, Tom
Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Foulkes, George


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Deakins, Eric
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Dempsey, James
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Dewar, Donald
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Buchan, Norman
Dixon, Donald
George, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Dobson, Frank
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Campbell, Ian
Dormand, Jack
Ginsburg, David


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Douglas, Dick
Gourlay, Harry


Canavan, Dennis
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Graham, Ted


Cant, R. [...].
Dubs, Alfred
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Carmichael, Neil
Duffy, A. E. P.
Grant, John (Islington C)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dunlop, John
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Cartwright, John
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Clark, Dr. David (South Shields)
Dunnett, Jack
Hardy, Peter




Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Sever, John


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Shearman, Barry


Haynes, Frank
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Heffer, Eric S.
Maynard, Miss Joan
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Meacher, Michael
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Home Robertson, John
Mikardo, Ian
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Homewood, William
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Hooley, Frank
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Snape, Peter


Horam, John
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Soley, Clive


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Spearing, Nigel


Howells, Geraint
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Spriggs, Leslie


Huckfield, Les
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Stallard, A. W.


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Morton, George
Stoddart, David


Janner, Hon Greville
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Stott, Roger


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Newens, Stanley
Strang, Gavin


John, Brynmor
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Straw, Jack


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Ogden, Eric
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
O'Halloran, Michael
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
O'Neill, Martin
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Kerr, Russell
Parry, Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Pavitt, Laurie
Tilley, John


Kinnock, Neil
Pendry, Tom
Tinn, James


Lambie, David
Penhaligon, David
Torney, Tom


Lamond, James
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Lester, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Prescott, John
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Race, Reg
Watkins, David


Litherland, Robert
Radice, Giles
Weetch, Ken


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
Welsh, Michael


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Richardson, Jo
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Whitehead, Phillip


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Whitlock, William


McElhone, Frank
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


McKelvey, William
Robertson, George
Winnick, David


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Woolmer, Kenneth


Maclennan, Robert
Rooker, J. W.
Wrigglesworth, Ian


McNally, Thomas
Roper, John
Young, David (Bolton East)


McNamara, Kevin
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)



McTaggart, Robert
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mcwilliam, John
Rowlands, Ted
Mr. Joseph Dean and


Magee, Bryan
Ryman, John
Mr. Hugh McCartney.


Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)






NOES


Adley, Robert
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Durant, Tony


Alexander, Richard
Browne, John (Winchester)
Eden Rt Hon Sir John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bruce-Gardyne, John
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)


Ancram, Michael
Bryan, Sir Paul
Eggar, Timothy


Arnold, Tom
Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Elliott, Sir William


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Buck, Antony
Emery, Peter


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Budgen, Nick
Eyre, Reginald


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Bulmer, Esmond
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Burden, F. A.
Fairgrieve, Russell


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Butcher, John
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Banks, Robert
Butler, Hon Adam
Farr, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Chapman, Sydney
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Churchill, W. S.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Best, Keith
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Forman, Nigel


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Biggs-Davison, John
Clegg, Sir Walter
Fox, Marcus


Blackburn, John
Colvin, Michael
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)


Blaker, Peter
Cope, John
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Body, Richard
Cormack, Patrick
Fry, Peter


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Corrie, John
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Costain, A. P.
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Cranborne, Viscount
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)


Bowden, Andrew
Critchley, Julian
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Boyson, Dr. Rhodes
Crouch, David
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dickens, Geoffrey
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bright, Graham
Dorrell, Stephen
Goodhart, Philip


Brinton, Tim
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Goodlad, Alastair


Brittan, Leon
Dover, Denshore
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Gray, Hamish


Brotherton, Michael
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Greenway, Harry







Grieve, Percy
Marland, Paul
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Scott, Nicholas


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Grist, Ian
Mates, Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Grylls, Michael
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Mawby, Ray
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Shersby, Michael


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Silvester, Fred


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mayhew, Patrick
Sims, Roger


Hannam, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Speed, Keith


Haselhurst, Alan
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Spence, John


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Hawkins, Paul
Miscampbell, Norman
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Hawksley, Warren
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Sproat, Iain


Hayhoe, Barney
Moate, Roger
Squire, Robin


Heddle, John
Monro, Hector
Stainton, Keith


Henderson, Barry
Montgomery, Fergus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Moore, John
Stanley, John


Hicks, Robert
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Steen, Anthony


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Stevens, Martin


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Mudd, David
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Hooson, Tom
Murphy, Christopher
Stokes, John


Hordern, Peter
Myles, David
Stradling Thomas, J.


Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Neale, Gerrard
Tapsell, Peter


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Needham, Richard
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Neubert, Michael
Tebbit, Norman


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Newton, Tony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Normanton, Tom
Thomas, Rt Hon. Peter (Hendon S)


Jessel, Toby
Nott, Rt Hon John
Thornton, Malcolm


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Onslow, Cranley
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexteyheath)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Trippier, David


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Trotter, Neville


Kershaw, Anthony
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
van-Straubenzee, W. R.


Kimball, Marcus
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
vaughan, Dr Gerard


King, Rt Hon Tom
Parkinson, Cecil
Viggers, Peter


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Parris, Matthew
Waddington, David


Knight, Mrs Jiil
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Wakeham, John


Knox, David
Patten, John (Oxford)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Lamont, Norman
Pattie, Geoffrey
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Lang, Ian
Pawsey, James
Wall, Patrick


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pink, R. Bonner
Waller, Gary


Latham, Michael
 Pollock, Alexander
Walters, Dennis


Lawrence, Ivan
Porter, George
Ward, John


Lawson, Nigel
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Warren, Kenneth


Lee, John
Prior, Rt Hon James
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Proctor, K. Harvey
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
 Raison, Timothy
Wheeler, John


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rathbone, Tim
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Whitney, Raymond


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Renton, Tim
Wickenden, Keith


Loveridge, John
Rhodes James, Robert
 Wiggin, Jerry


Luce, Richard
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wilkinson, John


Lyell, Nicholas
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Macfarlane, Neil
Ridsdale, Julian
Winterton, Nicholas


MacGregor, John
Rifkind, Malcolm
Wolfson, Mark


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Young, Sir George (Acton)


McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)



McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Major, John
Royle, Sir Anthony
Mr. Carol Mather and



Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Mr. Peter Brooke.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made:

No. 252, in page 210, line 25, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

'(a) that—
(i) if the area for which the scheme is to be prepared is within Greater London, adequate publicity is given to its provisions in Greater London;
(ii) if the area for which the scheme is to be prepared is in England or Wales but outside Greater London, adequate publicity is given to its provisions in the county in which the area is situated; and
(iii) if the area for which the scheme is to be prepared is in Scotland, adequate

publicity is given to its provisions in the region in which the area is situated; and

(aa) that adequate publicity is also given to the provisions of the scheme in any area specified under paragraph 1(5A) above;'.

No. 253, in page 210, line 29, leave out 'people' and insert 'persons'.

No. 254, in page 210, line 32, leave out 'people' and insert 'persons'.—[Mr. Heseltine.]

Mr. King: I beg to move amendment No. 255, in page 211, line 1, at end insert
', subject to sub-paragraph (2) below,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this we may take Government amendment No. 256.

Mr. King: The amendments are clear and self-explanatory, and I commend them to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made:

No. 256, in page 211, line 3, at end insert—
'(2A) A scheme may not be modified in any way inconsistent with the Secretary of State's invitation under paragraph 1 above.'.—[Mr. Heseltine.]

Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 257, in page 212, line 41, at end insert:
'(e) approve the scheme adopted by the body concerned and define by means of plan or map any areas with the zone specified by the scheme.'.
11.45 pm
It may surprise Conservative Members to learn that nowhere in the Bill is it stated that the Secretary of State has to approve the plan for an enterprise zone. The Government's handling of the matter has been irresponsible. This 33-paragraph schedule makes it possible for the Secretary of State virtually to require a local authority to reduce its planning standards to the degree that he finds acceptable and then, by a series of convoluted procedures, to require it to provide him with a scheme. Hon. Gentlemen who appear not to be interested should lend an ear. One day they may find themselves approached by constituents who are enraged that the Government have driven through, late at night and without proper debate, a scheme to the detriment of the country.
The procedure is not conducted by bidding. The Minister implied that there were bids from two people in East London. That is not so. In Committee we moved amendments to enable local authorities to apply. Those amendments were rejected. It is not a question of local authorities making bids. The Secretary of State invites a limited number of authorities to put in a scheme for an enterprise zone. He has advertised the scheme to many more authorities than those that can gain acceptance. Those authorities then have to prepare a scheme, and the local authority has to adopt it. The scheme is then sent to the

Secretary of State, who designates the area as an enterprise zone.
Nowhere in the Bill is it stated that the Secretary of State has to approve the scheme. The local authority, on which the Secretary of State will have been putting great pressure, carries the can. The amendment will make it clear that at the time of designation the Secretary of State must:
approve the scheme adopted by the body concerned and define by means of plan or map any areas within the zone specified by the scheme" 
After the body concerned has adopted the scheme and sent it to the Secretary of State, he has to approve it. Unless he does, he cannot be held responsible for what goes on. Any hon. Member with an enterprise zone in his constituency could make a complaint or representation. As the Bill is drafted, the Secretary of State can reply that the local authority applied for the scheme and he only gave permission. Nowhere in the Bill does the Secretary of State take responsibility for the scheme. The amendment would make him accountable to the House for having approved it. That will be to the benefit of local authorities, hon. Members and, ultimately, the reputation of any Secretary of State who makes such a designation order.

Mr. Fox: It is not clear what the amendment is designed to achieve. An enterprise zone can be designated only on the basis of a scheme adopted by a local authority or development corporation. After designation, development that accords with the scheme has planning permission under part III of the schedule. It is therefore unnecessary for orders specifically to approve the scheme.
I think that I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxieties, but it is important to stress that it is not possible for the Secretary of State to require an enterprise zone authority to modify the enterprise zone scheme. He can invite it to do so, but there is no obligation on the authority to take up that invitation. If it chooses to ignore it, there is no sanction or reserve power available to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Spearing: The Under-Secretary's reply is unconvincing. There is clearly a duty on the Minister and the House to take responsibility for any zone. The


Minister refuses to do that and, therefore, I shall not withdraw my amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. King: I beg to move amendment No. 259, in page 218, line 33 leave out
'the structure plan for the area'
and insert
'any structure plan for their area or for part of it which relates to the whole or part of the zone'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 260 to 264.

Mr. King: The first three amendments apply to England and Wales, and the second three to Scotland. They deal with the responsibility of local authorities to amend structure and local plans if an enterprise zone is designated in their areas.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 260, in page 218, line 40, leave out from beginning to 'which' in line 41 and insert—
'(1A) A county planning authority shall submit to the Secretary of State proposals for any alterations to a structure plan which they consider necessary to take account of the scheme or the modified scheme.
(1B) A local planning authority shall make proposals for any alterations to such a local plan as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b) above'.

No. 261, in page 218, line 43, at end add
'or for the repeal or replacement of any of those plans whose repeal or replacement they consider necessary for that purpose'.

No. 262, in page 219, line 6, leave out
'the structure plan for the area'
and insert
'any structure plan for their area or for part of it which relates to the whole or part of the zone'.

No. 263, in page 219, line 13, leave out from beginning to 'which' in line 14 and insert—
(1A) A planning authority exercising regional planning functions shall submit to the Secretary of State proposals for any alterations to a structure plan which they consider necessary to take account of the scheme or the modified scheme.
1B) A planning authority exercising district planning functions shall make proposals for any alterations to such a local plan as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b) above.'.

No. 264, in page 219, line 15, at end add

'or for the repeal or replacement of any of those plans whose repeal or replacement they consider necessary for that purpose '.—[Mr. King.]

Mr. King: I beg to move amendment No. 269, in page 221, line 29, at end add—
'30A. In section 1(2) of the Local Government Act 1974 (amount available for grants to local authorities) after the words "or section 56 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980" (inserted by section 56(3) above), in each place where they occur, there shall be inserted the words "or paragraph 29 of Schedule 25 to that Act".'.
The amendment makes it clear that grants in respect of rate exemptions for enterprise zones will be additional to rate support grant. The point was raised by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). I am glad to confirm it, and I believe that the amendment will have the support of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 26

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Mr. Fox: I beg to move amendment No. 271, in page 225, line 25, at end add—
'5A.—(1) In section 17B(2) of the General Rate Act 1967 (supplemental provisions as to liability to progressive surcharge in respect of unused office property) for the words from "(not being" to "section 19(2) of this Act" there shall be substituted the words "whose net annual value falls to be ascertained under section 19(3) of this Act and which consists of one or more non-industrial buildings, with or without a garden, yard, court, forecourt, outhouse or other appurtenance belonging thereto, but without other land (and for this purpose "non-industrial building" and "appurtenance" have the meanings assigned to them by section 19(6) of this Act)".
(2) In section 30(1) of that Act (county and voluntary school premises) for the words "gross value" wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the words "rateable value".
(3) In section 68(4) of this Act (definition of "material change of circumstances" for purposes of new valuation lists) for the words from "Schedule 11" in paragraph (g) to the end of paragraph (h) there shall be substituted the words "section 19 of this Act".
(4) In subsection 2(b) of section 79 of that Act (effect of alterations to valuation list made in pursuance of proposals) for "(h)" there shall be substituted "(g)".'.


The amendment makes four minor amendments that are consequential on new clause 22.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. John Tilley: I beg to move amendment No. 272, in page 225, line 43, at beginning insert—
'(1) In paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 after the words "a sub-committee", insert the words "or a member".
(2) In subsection (2) of section 101 after the words "a sub-committee", where they first appear insert the words "or a member" and after the words "discharge of any of those functions by", insert the words "a member or".
(3 In subsection (3) of section 101 after the word "sub-committee", insert the word "member".
(4) In subsection (4) of section 101 after the word "sub-committee", insert the word "member".
(5) In paragraph (a) of subsection (5) of section 101 after the words "joint committee of theirs or by", insert the words "a member or".'.
The amendment attempts to put right an issue on which the will of Parliament has been thwarted either by confusion or by decisions of the courts. Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 provides that a local authority could arrange the discharge of any of its functions by a committee, sub-committee or officer of the authority, and it was always thought that that provision simply restated earlier provisions in local government Acts that a local authority could arrange for matters capable of delegation to a committee to be dealt with by the mayor or the chairman of the committee as a matter of urgency. However, in recent years the validity of that practice has been questioned in the courts on the ground that the relevant provisions of the 1972 Act, which enable powers to be delegated to committees, do not define the word committee and it can be argued that a single member cannot be a committee.
Because of that, many local authorities have felt it necessary to set up special

machinery, such as urgency sub-committees, to undertake what is often formal and non-controversial business that arises between committee meetings. The procedures are cumbersome and take longer than they did previously, when it was relatively straightforward for a chairman to take urgent action. Hon. Members who have experience in local government know that the new procedures that are being enforced are more expensive to ratepayers, more inconvenient to councillors and may damage the interests of those involved, particularly when, say, social service orders are being implemented with regard to children in care. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment, on the ground that it restores the position to what everyone thought it was before. Finally, I hope that it will endear the amendment to the Secretary of State when I tell him that I put it forward on behalf of the London borough of Lambeth.

Mr. King: The amendment deals with the power to delegate full authority to a single member to carry out the functions of the council. This goes much further than the position put forward by the hon. Gentleman. It is not clear to the Government why the borough of Lambeth feels particularly that it needs to entrust its affairs to one man to discharge on behalf of the whole council. This is not a problem that has been raised on behalf of other councils, which are able to work perfectly adequately under the law. It is common for a council committee to authorise one of its members or the chairman to act between committees, subject to ratification at the next meeting of the committee.
I have to warn the House that the amendment goes a lot further than the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) suggested and gives complete powers to a single member. I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman had in mind, but I could not recommend the House to accept the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 27

REPEALS

Mr. Fox: I beg to move amendment No. 378 in page 226, line 13, leave out from beginning to end of line 34 on page 229 and insert—

'REPEALS CONSEQUENTIAL ON SECTION 1(1)—VARIOUS CONTROLS

Chapter
Short title
Extent of repeal


12&amp;13Geo.6 c.55.
Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949.
Section 2(2).



Section 12(1).




In section 21(1) the words "to give general directions under section twelve of this Act and".


14&amp;15Geo.6 c.63.
Rag Flock and Other Filling Materials Act 1951.
Section 6(5) and (6).



Section 7(5) and (6).




Section 15(5).




Section 27.


4 &amp; 5 Eliz.2 c.16.
Food and Drugs Act 1955.
Section 99(2).




In section 109, in subsection (2) the word "Subject to the next following subsection,' and subsection (3).


1970 c.40.
Agriculture Act 1970.
Section 67(7).




Section 80(2), (3) and (4).




Section 86(8).


1972 c.70.
Local Government Act 1972.
Section 138(2).


1974 c.3.
Slaughterhouses Act 1974.
Section 2(6) and (7).




In section 121(1) the words "and shall if so required by the Minister".




In section 16(1)(a) the words "and shall if so required by the Minister".

Part II

REPEALS CONSEQUENTIAL ON SECTION 1(2)—CLEAN AIR AND POLLUTION

Chapter
Short title
Extent of repeal


1956 c. 52.
Clean Air Act 1956.
Section 4.




In section 6, subsection (3), and in subsection (5) the words "under subsection (3) or".




In section 11, in subsection (1) the words "confirmed by the Minister", in subsection (5) the words "and confirmed" (in both places where they occur) and in subsection (6) the words "confirmation and".




In section 12(2) the words "and confirmed".




In section 31(6), the words from "or" to the end.




Section 35(4).


1964. c.56.
Housing Act 1964.
In section 95(2) the words "as confirmed".


1968 c.62.
Clean Air 1968.
Section 4(3).




Section 6(3).




In section 10, subsections (1) to (4).




In section 12(1) the words "14 or".




Section 14(3).


1974 c.40.
Control of Pollution Act 1974.
In section 2, in subsection (2), the words from "but provision may be made by regulations" to the end, in subsection (3)(a)(vi) the words "and such other persons as are prescribed", and subsection (7).




In section 5, in subsection (1) the words "and include such information as is prescribed", in subsection (2) the words from "but provision may be made by regulations" to the end, in subsection (4)(a) the words "and

Chapter
Short title
Extent of repeal


1974 c. 40—con[...]
Control of Pollution Act 1974—cont.
to any other prescribed person", in subsection (4)(b) the words "or person' (in each place where they occur), in subsection (5)(a) the words "and (iii) any other prescribed person", and in subsection (5)(b) the words "or person" (in each place where they occur).




In section 6, in subsection (1) the words "as to the conditions which are or are not to be specified in a disposal licence, and", and in subsection (2) the words "Subject to regulations made in pursuance of the preceding subsection".




In section 11, in subsection (3), paragraph (b) and in paragraph (c) the words "and to any other prescribed person" in subsection (4)(a) the words "and to any other prescribed person", and, in subsection (6), paragraph (b) and the word "and" immediately preceding it.




In section 23, subsection (3) and, in subsection (5), the words "and takes such other steps (if any) as are prescribed".




In section 28(1) the words "in the prescribed form".




In section 63, in subsection (1) the words "confirmed by the Secretary of State", in subsection (3) the words "and confirmed" (in both places where they occur), and in subsection (4) the words "confirmation and".




Section 73(2)(a).




In section 79(5) the words "or with the consent of the Secretary of State".

PART III

REPEALS CONSEQUENTIAL ON SECTION 1(3)—AMENITY ETC.

Chapter
Short title
Extent of repeal


39 and 40 Vict. 56.
Commons Act 1876.
Section 8.


62 and 63 Vic. c. 30.
Commons Act 1899.
In section 2, the second sentence.




In section 12 the words "and subject to thә approval of the Local Government Board".


12 and 13Geo. 6 c. 97.
National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.
Section 37. In section 61(3) paragraph (b) of the proviso.




Section 62(4).




Section 79.




In section 80(3) the words "made with the approval of the Minister".


1968 c. 41.
Countryside Act 1968.
Section 17.


1978 c. 3.
Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978
In section 3(2) the words "in the prescribed manner" and the words "in the prescribed manner and".




Section 4(4).




In section 6(2) the words "in the prescribed manner" and the words "in the prescribed manner and".

PART IV

REPEALS CONSEQUENTIAL ON SECTION 1(4)—WEIGHTS AND MEASURES AND TRADE

Chapter
Short title
Extent of repeal


14 Geo. 6. c. 28.
Shops Act 1950.
In section 8(1) the words "and confirmed by the Secretary of State in manner provided by this Act".




In section 9, in subsection (2), the words from "and the order" to the end, and subsection (3). Section 10.

Chapter
Short title
Extent of repeal


1963 c. 31.
Weights and Measures Act 1963.
In section 5(1A) the words "with the approval of the Secretary of State".




In section 39, subsections (3), (4) and (5).




In section 41(2) the words from "and notice" to the end.


1968 c. 29.
Trade Descriptions Act 1968.
Section 26(3) and (4).


1974 c. 39.
Consumer Credit Act 1974.
Section 161(4), (5) and (6).


1979 c. 38.
Estate Agents Act 1979.
Section 26(5), (6), (7) and (8).


1979 c 45.
Weights and Measures Act 1979.
In section 1(8)(a) the words from "and for the payment" to the end.




In section 4(3) the words from "to the investigation of a complaint" to "are not being properly discharged", the words" in sections 38(1) "and the words"39(3) the references".

PART V

REPEALS CONSEQUENTIAL ON SECTION 1(5)—ALLOTMENT

Chapter
Short title
Extent of repeal


8 Edw. 7 c. 36.
Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908.
In section 28(3) the words "Rules under this section" to the end.




In section 32(2) the words "and which is approved by the Local Government Board".




In the proviso to section 47(1) the words from "but, if the tenant feels aggrieved" to the end.




In section 49(2) the words "with the consent of, and subject to regulations made by, the Local Government Board".




Section 54.




Section 59.


9 &amp; 10 Geo. 5 c. 59.
Land Settlement (Facilities) Act 1919.
In section 22(1) the words from "with the consent" to "may impose".


12 &amp; 13Geo. 5 c. 51.
Allotments Act 1922.
Section 20.


15 &amp; 16 Geo. 5 c. 61.
Allotments Act 1925.
Section 13.

PART VI

REPEALS CONSEQUENTIAL ON SECTION 1(6)—CHARGES AND RATES OF INTEREST ETC.

Chapter
Short title
Extent of repeal


26 Geo. 5 &amp; 1 Edw. 8 c. 49.
Public Health Act 1936.
In section 291(3), the proviso.


5 &amp; 6 Eliz 2 c. 27.
Housing Act 1957.
In section 10(6).


1961 c. 65.
Housing Act 1961.
Section 18(8).


1964 c. 75.
Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964.
In section 8(2), the words "not exceeding such amount as may be specified in that behalf by the Secretary of State".


1966 c. 42.
Local Governemnt Act 1966.
In Schedule 3, in Part II, paragraphs 7, 12, 15 and 32.


1966 c. 51
Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966.
In Schedule 4, in Part II, paragraphs 10, 13 and 22.


1968 c. 54.
Theatres Act 1968.
In Schedule 1, in paragraph 3, sub-paragraph (2) and (3).


1972 c. 70.
Local Government Act 1972.
Section 171.


1972 c. xl.
Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1972.
Section 19(6)(c).


1973 c. 60.
Breeding of Dogs Act 1973.
Section 1(3).


1973 c. 65.
Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
In section 121(1) the words "section 10(2) of the Coast Protection Act 1949" and "section 23(5) of the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act 1969".


1974 c. 44.
Housing Act 1974.
Section 76(6)".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 382.

Mr. Fox: Amendment No. 378, although it appears bulky, is, in fact, insubstantial. The major change that it makes is presentational. Amendment No. 382 follows by replacing some of miscellaneous parts of the repeals schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. King: I beg to move amendment No. 275, in page 229, line 37, column 3, at end insert—
'In section 4(2), the words "of seven days". In section 19(6), the definition of "house".'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 276 to 280.

Mr. King: These are consequential repeals on rating.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made:

No. 277, in page 229, line 39, column 3, at end insert—
'In Schedule 1, in paragraph 1(2), the words "and no reduction shall be made under section 48 of this Act in respect of any rates so payable".'.

No. 278, in page 229, line 48, at end insert—

1973, c. XXX
Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973.
Section 26.'

No. 279, in page 230, column 3, leave out lines 2 to 5 and insert—
'In Schedule 7, paragraph 4'.

No. 280, in page 230, leave out lines 11 to 16.

No. 281, in page 230, leave out lines 17 to 25.

No. 282, in page 231, line 31, column 3, at end insert—
'In section 55(2), the word "only" and in paragraph (a) the words "(in this Act referred to as" listed building consent ")".'.

No. 379. in page 231, line 33, column 3, leave out Section 6(3)' and insert—
'In section 60(5), paragraph (c) and in paragraph (d) the words "the Secretary of State or".
In section 61, in subsection (2)(b), the words from "or" to the end of the paragraph and subsection (3).'—[Mr. King.]

Mr. Fox: I beg to move amendment No. 283, in page 231, line 35, after '(5)' insert (a) and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 284.

Mr. Fox: Paragraph 21(1)(b) of Schedule 11 removes the requirement that a London borough should consult the GLC before designating a conservation area. Section 277(5)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, which contains this requirement, therefore needs repealing.
Paragraph 21(2)(a) provides that section 277A(3) of the 1971 Act shall cease to have effect. This section provides for listed building consent for demolition of an unlisted building in a conservation area to be obtained either separately or as part of a planning permission. This situation has proved unsatisfactory and confusing for both applicants and local authorities. It is intended that a separate application for planning permission consent to demolish will be required in future.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 284, in page 231, line 35, at end insert—
'In section 227A, subsection (3), and in subsection (4), the words "or to an individual building so specified".'

No. 380, in page 233, line 21, at end add—

'12, 13 &amp; 14 Geo. 6. c. 97.
National Parks and Access to Countryside Act 1949.
Section 77(4)'

No.285, in page 234, line 19, at end insert—


'38 &amp; 39 Vict. c. 55.
Public Health Act 1875.
Section 172.'

—(Mr. King.)

12 midnight

Mr. King: I beg to move amendment No. 381, in page 234, line 22, after "nor"', insert
'and the words "to be in accordance with such plans"'.
This amendment deals with the repeal of the control over the approval of crematoriums. It will not excite great interest in the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 286, in page 234, line 26, column 3, at end insert—
'In Schedule 2, in paragraph 28(1), the words "with the approval of the Treasury ".'.

No. 238, in page 234, line 29, at end add—


1970 c.42
Local Authority Social Services Act 1970.
section 6(3) and (4). In section 13, in subsection (1), the words "and regulations" in subsection (3), the words "or regulations under section 6(3) thereof", and in subsection (5), the words "or regulations ".'

No. 287, in page 234, line 29, column 3, at end insert—
'In Schedule 5, paragraph 1.'.—[Mr. King.]

Orders of the Day — Title

Amendment made: No. 288, in the title, line 18, after 'council', insert
'to empower certain further authorities to confer honorary distinctions'[Mr. Nelson.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Rippon: The Bill has such far-reaching consequences that it would be wrong to give it a formal Third Reading. Much remains to be said about it, but I assure the House that I shall not say it all tonight. However, as an anti-wet, Right-wing, radical Conservative I do not like conglomerate measures such as this. I pay tribute to the courtesy and skill with which my right hon. Friend and his colleagues have piloted the Bill to this stage.
It is dangerous to discuss measures of such complexity in a casual way. I do not often agree with the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), but I have always shared his anxieties about the way in which we conduct our business. Myriads of Committees occupy much time. Hon. Members scurry from room to room doing, no doubt, excellent work, but we must always remember that the ultimate power and responsibility rests in this Chamber. The Bill is at the

stage at which we might be grateful that the other place can put it into some order.
The Opposition have been less than full-hearted in their opposition to the Bill. Their opposition to the Housing Bill was different. There could be two reasons for their attitude. First, when in opposition there are good arguments for not improving a Bill because the better it is the less trouble the Government will be in. Secondly, they might be looking forward to using some of the powers if they have the chance.
I am grateful for what was said about the powers of urban development corporations. The undertaking that was given this afternoon should meet most of the objections that I have made and will make it impossible for any future Secretary of State to absorb all the functions of the City of London, which is possible under the Bill as it stands.
The trouble is that this conglomerate measure contains several distinct Bills, parts of which I approve, and parts of which I do not. I do not like the financial provisions. They are pernicious in theory and probably unworkable in practice. I have reservations about some of the planning provisions, which are muddled and strewn with pitfalls.
I welcome the concept of enterprise zones. It is clear that the provisions of schedule 25—I am glad to have had an undertaking about that—will have to be looked at closely in another place.
In the circumstances—I do not know whether it will come to a Division—I shall not be able to vote for the Bill on Third Reading, but because I approve of some parts, though not of others, I shall, whatever may happen in the next few minutes, confidently abstain from voting, knowing that, given the assurances that my right hon. Friends have offered today and on earlier occasions, the Bill will eventually emerge from the other place in better shape than it is today. That may be a hope, but I am sure that it is one that will be fulfilled.

Mr. Alton: I do not intend to detain the House for long, but I think that it would be unwise to pass the Bill at this stage without listening to the comments of people such as the right hon. and


learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), who has had a wealth of experience as a previous Secretary of State for the Environment.
I remind the House of the speech made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) during the discussion of the unitary grant system. He is a Conservative Member with great experience in local government, but he had nothing but disdain for the measures introduced by the Government on the unitary grant system.
While we on the Liberal Bench welcome parts of the Bill—in particular the measures concerned with the relaxation of central controls and the publication of information—we feel that in other areas, particularly the financial aspects of the Bill governing the unitary grant system and capital projects, the legislation leaves a great deal to be desired. We share the views of local authority associations, such as the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of District Councils and many of the Conservative-controlled councils all over the country, that the Government should think again before putting this Bill on to the statute book. I urge Conservative Members, even if they vote for the Bill, to urge their noble colleagues in another place to reconsider many of the provisions of the Bill.
I return in particular to the question of the unitary grant system and to the provisions governing capital expenditure. The financial provisions of the Bill will do more to undermine local government autonomy than anything else.
Hon. Members on the Opposition Benches have paid tribute to the concept of the urban development corporation and the enterprise zones. There is a grave danger that the UDCs and the enterprise zones will become like states within a state and begin to undermine local government by setting up new barriers. I remind the House of the folly that it committed in 1973 when it implemented the Conservative Government's proposals on the reform of local government. County councils that were established have proved to be unwieldy and have set up barriers between themselves and district councils all over the country. Those proposals were an act of folly because they were piecemeal legislation.
I am concerned also about the powers that the Bill confers on the Secretary of State for the Environment. However, I must pay tribute to the Minister of State for the way in which he has handled the passage of the Bill. I am grateful to him for the courtesy that he extended to me and my colleagues during our contributions, but I am anxious about the attitude of his right hon. Friend in his dealings with local authorities. He had to apologise in the House to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities when he first brought forward the proposals in the Bill, which he never even had the courtesy to discuss with that organisation.
It is for those reasons that I suspect the motives of the Secretary of State when I say that I believe that he is deliberately trying to undermine local government and attempting to take greater powers for himself. For that reason I urge hon. Members to vote against the Third Reading.

Mr. Cant: I shall be brief. As the oldest member of those who served on the Committee, and as one who still serves in local government, I should like to make one or two comments. I join the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) in paying tribute to the Minister of State. Everybody felt not only that he conducted the affairs of the Committee with his usual courtesy and competence but that he managed to diffuse the proceedings in a way that sometimes made us wonder whether we were truly fulfilling our task of bashing the Government in the same way as was done in the Housing Bill and Social Security Bill Committees. Perhaps it was his approach and his obvious gift of being able to pour oil on troubled waters from time to time that did it, but it was also partly the nature of the subject. Whatever has been said about the Minister's colleague, I established quite a decent rapport with the right hon. Gentleman and found him quite helpful. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman has a different style.
Having said that, I want to say in two sentences what I believe about the Bill. I think that it is yet another great and disastrous watershed in the history of local government. The first, as the hon. Member for Edge Hill mentioned, was in 1974, which organised local government


so as to make it far more expensive and almost unworkable.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you explain where in the Bill there is any reference to the Local Government Act 1974, which I agree the Tory Government were responsible for introducing? I understood that on Third Reading one discussed only what was in the Bill, not what one would like to see in it, or whether the person in charge was a good or bad Minister of State.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It has been a long day, and perhaps it is now time for a few compliments to flow.

Mr. Cant: I could have finished my speech by now, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The first part of the Bill will result in the almost total destruction of direct labour organisation. The disclosure by authorities will give immense powers to the Secretary of State. The Bill proposes the introduction of the new block grant, yet even now, at this late hour, local authority officials do not know precisely how it will work. It also deals with capital expenditure and planning, as well as with the new UDCs.
The Bill introduces into local government, in a way that we cannot fully comprehend at present, a new anti-democratic bias which we shall all live to regret. Perhaps Tory Members are not very sensitive about these delicate issues. Those of us who have been involved in local government will, I am sure, see the build-up of a reaction within the communities which we try to serve which will be comparable to what we saw with the reform of 1974, which so far as I know is a reform without a friend.

Mr. King: I should like to reply briefly to the debate. I thank the three hon. Members for the kind personal comments that they made about myself and about my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, to whom I am extremely grateful for the work that he has done in piloting the Bill through the House. I thought that it was a pretty mixed compliment, because they told me how much they had been won over by my charms, while

advising me that they would all vote against the Bill.
I recognise that major issues are involved. It has been said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and others that a number of Bills are contained within it. I do not accept that, but it covers an area of departmental responsibilities that are of considerable significance.
I take some pride in the fact that in the Bill we are repealing the Community Land Act, and also that we are repealing no fewer than 300 controls that Whitehall exercises over local government. We are making certain minor but beneficial improvements in the rating system to help the disabled and charities, which I am sure the whole House welcomes. We are introducing proposals with regard to land registers, which are generally welcomed on both sides of the House. We are introducing new arrangements with regard to the publication of information by local authorities, which I believe are also generally welcomed.
We are introducing new proposals, perhaps slightly more controversial, on direct labour organisations, which will be of great benefit to their economic operation. There are controversial proposals in our new arrangements for block grant, but at no time during our discussions has there been any defence of the present system. Everybody has recognised the need for change. We are not simply talking about it; we are taking action to make that change.
The Bill will make a major contribution to the relationship between central and local government in the area of local government, planning and land. The additional new innovations of urban development corporations and enterprise zones will be of significant benefit to some of the derelict and deprived parts of Britain and make their contribution towards the economic regeneration of this country. It is against that background that I warmly commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Hattersley: Had the Minister confined himself to the blushing acceptance of the compliments, with which I wish to be associated, I should not have wished to delay the House by even three min


utes. In defending the Bill, as he has done nobly for six months—a rule and a position that he does not share with the Secretary of State, who has brought himself to speak only once on the subject since the Bill was introduced in January—the Minister inevitably, and I suppose from his point of view properly, dealt with the more popular aspects of the Bill, and therefore the minor and less consequential aspects.
The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the central issue on which we are asked to vote tonight on Third Reading contains the financial relationship between the Government and local authorities. He knows that that part of the Bill has very few friends indeed. We have not heard a single speech from the Conservative Back Benches in support of that part of the Bill. Not a single local authority association, including those controlled by the Conservative Party, is in favour of that part of the Bill. Every national newspaper that has written about that part of the Bill has condemned it, including those national newspapers that are normally sycophantic in their support and praise for the Government.
The truth is that the central issue in the Bill concerns not only the finances of local authorities, but the powers of the Secretary of State for the Environment. Within the Bill there are powers of the most arbitrary sort. They enable the Secretary of State to do what he likes, how he likes and when he likes about the distribution of central Government funds and the supervision of local authority activities. If the provisions within the Bill were acceptable to the Labour side of the House, the idea that a Bill containing such enabling powers should be passed, leaving an individual Minister with such discretion, would, in itself, be enough to take us into the "No" Lobby.

This sort of Bill should not be passed by a democratic House of Commons.

In addition, a major feature of the Bill—the only feature about which the Secretary of State has said anything outside the House—is the power to provide retrospective punishment to councils and councillors who behave properly and legally in April, but who, if the Bill is passed, will be punished for it in November. The true nature of the Bill—its arbitrary quality, its retrospective quality and the hybridity of its spirit—becomes clear. It is exactly the sort of Bill that people tell us the House of Lords is there to protect the people and the constitution against. I am sure that some of those—including myself—who are cynical about the willingness and the enthusiasm of the House of Lords to act on these occasions will look with great interest to see whether the other place does fulfil its traditional function and protect the people of Britain against an arbitrary, retrospective and hybrid Bill, or whether it allows the Bill to pass without the scrutiny, the changes, and the rejection that it deserves.

I suspect that the Bill will pass into law generally unamended, despite what may be said in another place. It will be left to the next Labour Government to remedy its ills. That remedy can be simply described. The main purpose of the Bill is to promote and extend central Government control over local government. We on the Labour side of the House reaffirm our belief in local government autonomy. When we are re-elected after the next election we shall restore the local government autonomy that the Bill removes.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 233.

Division No. 403]
AYES
[12.20 pm


Alexander, Richard
Biggs-Davison, John
Brotherton, Michael


Ancram, Michael
Blackburn, John
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)


Arnold, Tom
Blaker, Peter
Browne, John (Winchester)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Body, Richard
Bruce-Gardyne, John


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Bryan, Sir Paul


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Buck, Antony


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Budgen, Nick


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Bowden, Andrew
Bulmer, Esmond


Banks, Robert
Boyson, Dr. Rhodes
Burden, F. A.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Braine, Sir Bernard
Butcher, John


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Bright, Graham
Butler, Hon Adam


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Brinton, Tim
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Best, Keith
Brittan, Leon
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Brooke, Hon Peter
Chapman, Sydney




Churchill, W. S.
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Porter, George


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushclifle)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Proctor, K. Harvey


Clegg, Sir Walter
Jessel, Toby
Ralson, Timothy


Colvin, Michael
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Rathbone, Tim


Cope, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cormack, Patrick
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Renton, Tim


Corrie, John
Kershaw, Anthony
Rhodes James, Robert


Costain, A. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cranborne, Viscount
King, Rt Hon Tom
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Critchley, Julian
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Ridsdale, Julian


Crouch, David
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rifkind, Malcolm


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knox, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lamont, Norman
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lang, Ian
Royle, Sir Anthony


Dover, Denshore
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Latham, Michael
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lawrence, Ivan
Scott, Nicholas


Durant, Tony
Lawson, Nigel
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lee, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Lennox Boyd, Hon Mark
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Eggar, Timothy
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shepherd, Richard(Aldridge-Br'hills)


Elliott, Sir William
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shersby, Michael


Emery, Peter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Silvester, Fred


Eyre, Reginald
Loveridge, John
Sims, Roger


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Luce, Richard
Speed, Keith


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Lyell, Nicholas
Spence, John


Farr, John
Macfarlane, Neil
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
MacGregor, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Sproal, Iain


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Stainton, Keith


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fookes, Miss Janet
Major, John
Stanley, John


Forman, Nigel
Marland, Paul
Steen, Anthony


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stevens, Martin


Fox, Marcus
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Mates, Michael
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Mather, Carol
Stokes, John


Fry, Peter
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Stradling Thomas, J.


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Mawby, Ray
Tapsell, Peter


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mayhew, Patrick
Tebbit, Norman


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ginsburg, David
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Thomas, Rt Hon. Peter (Hendon S)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Thornton, Malcolm


Goodhart, Philip
Miscampbell, Norman
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Goodlad, Alastair
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Trippier, David


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Moate, Roger
Trotter, Neville


Gray, Hamish
Monro, Hector
van-Straubenzee, W. R.


Greenway, Harry
Montgomery, Fergus
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Grieve, Percy
Moore, John
Viggers, Peter


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Waddington, David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Wakeham, John


Grist, Ian
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Grylls, Michael
Mudd, David
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Murphy, Christopher
Wall, Patrick


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll,
Myles, David
Waller, Gary


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neale, Gerrard
Walters, Dennis


Hampson, Dr Keith
Needham, Richard
Ward, John


Hannam, John
Nelson, Anthony
Warren, Kenneth


Haselhurst, Alan
Neubert, Michael
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Newton, Tony
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Hawkins, Paul
Normanton, Tom
Wheeler, John


Hawksley, Warren
Nott, Rt Hon John
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Hayhoe, Barney
Onslow, Cranley
Whitney, Raymond


Heddle, John
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Wickenden, Keith


Henderson, Barry
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wiggin, Jerry


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Wilkinson, John


Hicks, Robert
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Parkinson, Cecil
Winterton, Nicholas


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Parris, Matthew
Wolfson, Mark


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Hooson, Tom
Patten, John (Oxford)



Hordern, Peter
Pattie, Geoffrey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Pawsey, James
 Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Pink, R. Bonner
 Mr. Anthony Berry 



Pollock, Alexander



NOES


Abse, Leo
Alton, David
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack


Adams, Allen
Anderson, Donald
Ashton, Joe


Allaun, Frank
Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, [...]ott'ham)







Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Newens, Stanley


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
George, Bruce
Ogden, Eric


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
O'Halloran, Michael


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Ginsburg, David
O'Neill, Martin


Bidwell, Sydney
Graham, Ted
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Grant, John (Islington C)
Parry, Robert


Bradley, Tom
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Pavitt, Laurie


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Pendry, Tom


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hardy, Peter
Penhaligon, David


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Prescott, John


Buchan, Norman
Haynes, Frank
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Race, Reg


Campbell, Ian
Heffer, Eric S.
Radice, Giles


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Canavan, Dennis
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Richardson, Jo


Cant, R. B.
Home Robertson, John
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Carmichael, Neil
Homewood, William
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hooley, Frank
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Cartwright, John
Horam, John
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Clark, Dr. David (South Shields)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Robertson, George


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Howells, Geraint
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Cohen, Stanley
Huckfield, Les
Rooker, J. W.


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Roper, John


Concannon Rt Hon J. D.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Conlan, Bernard
Janner, Hon Greville
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cook, Robin F.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rowlands, Ted


Cowans, Harry
John, Brynmor
Sever, John


Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Shearman, Barry


Crowther, J. S.
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Kerr, Russell
Skinner, Dennis


Dalyell, Tam
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Davidson, Arthur
Kinnock, Neil
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lambie, David
Snape, Peter


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lamond, James
Soley, Clive


Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Lester, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Spearing, Nigel


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Spriggs, Leslie


Deakins, Eric
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stallard, A. W.


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Litherland, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon David


Dempsey, James
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Stoddart, David


Dewar, Donald
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Stott, Roger


Dixon, Donald
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Strang, Gavin


Dobson, Frank
McCartney, Hugh
Straw, Jack


Dormand, Jack
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Douglas, Dick
McElhone, Frank
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Dubs, Alfred
McKelvey, William
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


Duffy, A. E. P.
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Dunlop, John
Maclennan, Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
McNally, Thomas
Tilley, John


Dunnett, Jack
McNamara, Kevin
Torney, Tom


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McTaggart, Robert
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Eadie, Alex
McWilllam, John
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Eastham, Ken
Magee, Bryan
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Watkins, David


English, Michael
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Weetch, Ken


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
Welsh, Michael


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Evans, John (Newton)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Whitehead, Phillip


Faulds, Andrew
Meacher, Michael
Whitlock, William


Field, Frank
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Flannery, Martin
Mikardo, Ian
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Winnick, David


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Ford, Ben
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Forrester, John
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, ltchen)
Young, David (Bolton East)


Foster, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)



Foulkes, George
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Mr. George Morton and


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Mr. James Tinn.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

EDUCATION SERVICE (HAMPSHIRE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: At the beginning of this short Adjournment debate I ought to declare an interest. Not only am I a Member of Parliament for a Hampshire constituency but I have two children who are being educated at Hampshire schools. If more Conservative councillors on the Hampshire county council were to send their children to State schools we might not be in the mess in which we find ourselves.
I am pleased to welcome several Conservative Members from Hampshire to the debate. I only wish that some of them had been outside the castle in Winchester on Monday morning when 4,000 people protested against the cuts in the education service proposed by the Hampshire county council. At that protest meeting there were not only representatives of political parties and the professional organisations but large numbers of parent-teacher organisations and parents who were worried sick about the future of their children's education.
I should like to quote from a document that was handed to me at that meeting. It is from the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association—not the most militant of bodies—and it states:
By long tradition ours is a professional association which prefers to make its point of view felt in moderate, reasonable and unspectacular ways. However, it is our belief that the education service in Hampshire is coming perilously near to a point where adequate statutory provision cannot be made, and it is fear for the consequences of draconian decisions today which has caused this last minute appeal.
Hampshire is already one of the worst education authorities in the country.

Mr. Michael Mates: Rubbish.

Mr. Mitchell: In any league table that one takes it is near the bottom.

Mr. Mates: Rubbish.

Mr. Mitchell: The additional cuts proposed by the policy resources committee

of Hampshire county council on Monday morning will make the position infinitely worse. Since July 1979, 469 full-time equivalent teachers have gone, and it is now proposed that another 370, making 839 in all, should go.
The effect will be very serious. I have some details of schools in Hampshire. Some are in my constituency, and some are in the constituencies of Conservative Members. At school No. 1, the main effect will be on the teaching of German. The German language teacher has left and is not being replaced. German will disappear from the curriculum. At the same school, it is being urged that any further children recommended for placement in the special unit should remain in ordinary schools because there are no places available.
At another school—it is one at which I used to teach—there will be great difficulty in teaching both history and geography. I hope that the Minister is listening. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is a history specialist. We have always agreed on the importance of academic excellence. History and geography at the school at which I used to teach will be taught by many non-specialist teachers—indeed, seven and six respectively. In other words, seven non-specialist teachers will share the teaching of history, and six non-specialist teachers will share the teaching of geography. It is inevitable that there will be a loss of teaching quality.
At another school, fourth year pupils studying biology, environmental science and needlework will not be able to continue with their courses in the final examination year. Substantial cuts will have to be made in the provision of these subjects lower down the school.
At another school there will be no drama classes, and a marked reduction in the number of teachers available for English. It is probable that liberal studies will be removed from the curriculum.
If a teacher leaves a school, he or she is not replaced. That means that very often a subject has to be dropped from the curriculum for at least part of the school.
The situation becomes even more serious when we consider mathematics and science. Teachers of those subjects tend to move around more rapidly than


do teachers of other subjects. There is a shortage of such teachers and they gain promotion more easily than do other teachers. They move to graded posts and to become heads of departments in other schools. If a science teacher leaves and he is not replaced, some pupils will receive no science teaching. That is happening in school after school. It is true of a number of primary schools. As a result, there has to be vertical grouping. That means that children of one year are placed in a class with children of another year. It means that some children will not be able to move up the school at the end of the year. Another consequence is that one class will have to have three teachers in one year.

Mr. Mates: rose—

Mr. Mitchell: No. I shall not give way.
The situation in Hampshire is serious.

Mr. Mates: What document is the hon. Gentleman using?

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman may make his remarks on another occasion.

Mr. Mates: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For the record, and so that the Hansard reporters can do their job properly, will the hon. Gentleman tell us from which document he is quoting?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. That is not a point of order. Time is limited for an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Mitchell: The document has been provided by the National Union of Teachers and contains information on all the schools in Hampshire.

Mr. Mates: Ah!

Mr. Mitchell: Why does the hon. Gentleman say "Ah!"?

Mr. Mates: We want the truth.

Mr. Mitchell: I hope that NUT members in Petersfield will note that remark.
It was proposed last Monday to cut a further £600,000 off the book and equipment allowances. Only six of the 39 counties make a poorer provision than Hampshire for books in primary schools. Only four of the 39 make poorer provision for books in secondary schools.

That information comes from the report of the chief education officer.
There is widespread sharing of textbooks already. That applies even for pupils taking examinations. Pupils are unable to take textbooks home to do their homework. Many textbooks on important subjects are out of date and are not being replaced. Many parents have spent considerable sums to buy textbooks for their children. It is the children of poorer families—for example, those from one-parent families—who suffer.
School fetes and school functions are being used to raise money to buy essential textbooks, instead of the more expensive and luxury equipment that used to be acquired. One Conservative council has gone so far as to say that it is the responsibility of parents to raise money to help to pay teachers' salaries. That is the situation to which we are coming—a member of the education committee making that statement. At the same time as all that is going on, Hampshire can afford to donate £2,000 to each of five independent schools in the county.
On Monday morning the policy and resources committee recommended that a further £4·2 million should be cut from the education budget. That is in excess of everything that I have mentioned so far. There are to be staff reductions to save £1½ million; reductions in books and equipment to save £1 million; and the capital programme is to be cut by 75 per cent. to save £1·2 million. Other expenditure, on non-teaching staff and in-service training, which is vital to keep teachers up to date, is to be cut by £500,000.
I have said that Hampshire has a much poorer record than any other local education authority. Official returns to the Department of Education and Science—I say this particularly to the hon. Member for Petersfield—from the report of the chief education officer for January 1979 show that in pupil-teacher ratios Hampshire stands at No. 92 out of 97 authorities and at No. 80 out of 97 for the number of teachers employed in schools, and these further cuts will make the position worse.
Children in Hampshire are being given a raw deal, and I propose to quote a significant passage from the report of the chief education officer. I hope that no


Conservative Member will say that these are lies:
The penalties of these reductions would include higher class sizes in many schools, reduced provision for special learning groups (eg, remedial, very able and talented children), the abandonment or reduction of some specialisms (particularly sciences, crafts and technology, languages, pastoral care, careers), real threat to the ability of some sixth forms to admit all students and less effective teaching of shortage subjects such as mathematics and science. Special schools would be affected for the first time.
That was the chief education officer's report to the committee on the cuts that were announced on Monday morning.
I hope that the Minister will not make the conventional excuse that there is nothing that he can do, because I have heard that so many times. He will say that it is for the local education authority to make its decision and that it has nothing to do with him or the Department. I am beginning to wonder what is the function of the Department. It was said to me the other day that if it disappeared without trace no one would realise that it had gone. If we really want to make some cuts, the Minister ought to eliminate the DES, because on every occasion that anyone asks questions about cuts in education anywhere the answer is that that is nothing to do with the Department.
I want to make one practical suggestion about where cuts could be made. I suggest that the Minister should authorise a team of Her Majesty's inspectors to go to Hampshire to investigate whether the education committee is fulfilling its duty under the Education Act 1944. That is something that the Minister has power to do, and he should do it, because considerable doubt has been expressed by many people and authorities about whether Hampshire is fulfilling, or will fulfil, its duty if it makes the cuts that were announced on Monday morning. On behalf of the parents and children of Hampshire I appeal to the Minister to intervene now and stop the rape of the education service.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): We are aware of the long-standing interest of the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) in the education service. I know that he was a deputy head and master in charge of mathematics

and science in a school, and thus he is aware of the classroom situation. I say as a matter of interest that my children attended State schools when I was on the education committee in that area.
I want, first, to speak of the national plan and then to refer to the situation in Hampshire, particularly bearing in mind this week's events. It must be made clear that nobody wants to make cuts. The making of cuts is not a way of life, but the Government were elected on a platform that the books must be balanced. The electorate knew at the general election last year that it was a question of balancing the books. Although some people known to the hon. Gentleman would be concerned about certain cuts that have been made in Hampshire, possibly the same people would be very concerned if a supplementary rate were to be levied or if income tax were to be increased. I believe that on Monday suggestions were made by Labour Members to the effect that a supplementary rate should be levied. Often those who do not want to pay increased rates and taxes are those who shout the loudest if economies are made. I repeat that we were elected to balance the books nationally.
In the last 25 years we have almost doubled the share of gross national product devoted to education. However, I do not think that many people would consider that standards in schools have doubled in that time. Similarly, in the last 20 to 25 years we have lowered the pupil-teacher ratio by about 25 per cent. I do not think people see an automatic link between the number of teachers in post and the expenditure and the standards in schools. That does not mean that if we did not have any teachers at all the standards would be higher, but one cannot see that there is an automatic link between expenditure and educational standards.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Obviously everybody wants to see value for money. Is my hon. Friend aware that in Hampshire for every four teachers there is one member of the administrative staff? For every six teachers there is a meal attendant. For every 6.6 teachers there is a caretaker. Is it not essential that local education authorities take careful note of the ratio between teaching and non-teaching staff so that


we can get the value for money to which my hon. Friend is referring? As 60 per cent. of the expenditure on education is financed by the central Government, what consultations can my hon. Friend have with the chairmen and others in local authorities to ensure that this ratio is kept at the right level?

Dr. Boyson: I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention. He obviously knows the area. Just as the Government must decide, within the limited sum of money that they raise in taxes, what their priorities are, so must a local authority. The priority must surely be the teacher in the classroom. The more one spends on other things, the less that can be spent on the teacher in the classroom. What we have observed in 20 to 25 years in teaching is the build-up of large ancillary services coming from the set sum that can be spent on education at any time. My hon. Friend made a valuable intervention.
Over the next four years of a rolling programme there will be a fall of 13 per cent. in the population of children in our schools—obviously they are already born; they do not start at the age of 0; they start at the age of 4 or rising-5 or 5. Our cut in expenditure in that rolling programme is only 6·5 per cent. This means that nationally as a Government we shall be spending more per child in real terms at the end of the four years than is being spent now. I wish to stress that, because the press has given little emphasis to this fact recently.
This year we put into the rate support grant 2 per cent. more for non-teaching expenditure. That includes particularly the question of books, which has been referred to time and time again in the press and in the House. During Question Time last week reference was made to the fact that in 1982–83, £35 million will be spent on books. We know how important that is. There is no doubt about the Government's priorities.
We kept the rate support grant at 61 per cent. this year. Over a number of years there has been a movement of the rate support grant needs element against the shire counties, including Hampshire. I have the figures, and I know that other hon. Members have them as well. I therefore shall not go through them. We have rectified the matter to some extent this year. The shire counties may not have

bled to death, but they have been handicapped over the years by the movement of the needs element from the shires to the inner cities. We have now reversed that. Authorities should not be blamed for something that is often outside their direct control.
We have reminded local authorities that we asked for a cut. We asked them to revise their budgets for 1980–81. Taking all services, local government initial current expenditure budget estimates are now about 5 per cent.—that is £700,000,000, above the Government's target in real terms. We must get expenditure and income into balance. In those circumstances, no authority or service can be exempt from scrutiny. We have therefore asked that local government should revise its current expenditure plans for 1980–81, to ensure that local authority spending is generally brought down to the level provided in the rate support grant settlement.
I remind the hon. Member for Itchen of what happened when the previous Labour Government were in office. We were all in the House at that time. In 1977–78, as against 1976–77, there was a cut nationally of 2 per cent. in expenditure. The Labour Government made a cut in capital expenditure that was far in excess of the present cut in capital expenditure. This is nothing new. When the international brokers came in, the Labour Party faced reality for a time. We are facing the situation without the international brokers. That strikes me as being more honourable. One makes no apology about what needs to be done.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Hampshire education committee has never before cut its capital expenditure by 75 per cent.

Dr. Boyson: I was dealing with national figures. I shall turn to Hampshire shortly. The hon. Gentleman said that Hampshire was at the bottom of every league table. Let me keep him in suspense. I shall finish by referring to certain league tables which, if I were a parent, would appear to be more important than those that were mentioned. I shall let the hon. Gentleman wait a little while for that small treat.
The situation in Hampshire, about which the hon. Gentleman expressed concern, must be seen against that background. I should emphasise, however,


that the reductions in the county's education expenditure that were agreed yesterday by Hampshire's policies and resources committee are not a direct consequence of the Government's call for revised budgets. They have resulted because sufficient allowance was not made for inflation. Nobody could tell what inflation would be. The cuts were made to bring the country's education budget into balance. Inflation ran faster this year than was prophesied. We all know that, and there is no harm in telling the truth.
The hon. Gentleman will not like it, but I repeat that it is for individual local authorities to decide precisely how to implement the Government's expenditure plans, in the light of local needs and circumstances. From what I know of the authority's new decisions and those that it made earlier, it would seem that Hampshire has done all that it can to safeguard the essential fabric of its education service. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) emphasised that point. Substantial savings have already been made in school meals, milk and transport. Hampshire is looking for further savings of about £4·8 million. That is less than 2½ per cent. of the authority's education budget. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it scrapped its earlier figure of £10 million because it considered that it was inconsistent with the performance of its statutory duties. That shows the authority's sense of responsibility. To make that 2½ per cent. cut, Hampshire has put all parts of its education service under scrutiny. I have no doubt that its decisions to defer school building and to withhold the 1979–80 inflation increase from the schools' general allowance were not take lightly. They were necessary. Nor do I doubt Hampshire's ability to continue to provide a broad and balanced curriculum.
The hon. Gentleman read from an NUT document. I remember my right hon. and learned Friend referring to other documents. Documents should not always be taken as the holy writ, although I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman's word.
With a falling population in schools, there will have to be rationalisation of sixth form courses. That has been carried out well in many areas. Some small sixth form courses are fantastically expen

sive. On occasions, it would be cheaper to send pupils to Eton.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: These are not sixth form courses.

Dr. Boyson: That may be so, but there are many sixth form courses in the area.
There will have to be rationalisation throughout the country. There will need to be federal arrangements between sixth forms. A sixth form teacher can spend up to one-fifth of his teaching time taking one sixth form group. The cost of one pupil taking three subjects could be fantastic. That cost will have to be faced by the teaching profession and governing bodies of schools.
Let us put the teaching position into perspective. I am informed that it means a loss through natural wastage of 320 teaching posts. The school curriculum will be little affected. Provision will continue to be made for 16 to 18-year-olds in sixth forms and tertiary colleges and colleges of further education. The Portsmouth polytechnic and the Southampton college of higher education will continue to provide a wide range of higher education courses, notwithstanding the reductions that will be made in their staffing numbers.
The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to join in rejoicing over certain achievements in Hampshire. However, let me first say that we are debating the actions of an authority that has responsibly worked out how best to fulfil its educational duties in the light of today's constraints on public expenditure. It is not a matter for censure, although it does not necessarily warrant applause. Hampshire can be satisfied that it has done a sensible job. I am sure that the authority did not welcome the meeting, but it carried out its public responsibility, as we all have to. Local authorities throughout the country are having to take similar action. It is, quite simply, good housekeeping.
I mentioned the 2 per cent. cut introduced by the Labour Party and the 20 to 25 per cent. capital cut throughout the country. At that time we did not have falling rolls, with a 13 per cent. drop over four years.
Hampshire should be praised. It has been in the forefront of the provision of open sixth form colleges. It has 12 in the


county. I have visited one college in Hampshire, and I was impressed. It was the first open sixth form college that I had visited. My respect for those colleges arose from what I saw in Hampshire.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Southampton, not Hampshire.

Dr. Boyson: I visited colleges at Cricklade and Andover, too.
If parents were dissatisfied with the provision in schools, would more pupils be staying on in that area than the national average? For Hampshire, the age 16 staying on rate is 28·2 per cent., com- pared with a 24·5 per cent. average in England. Four per cent. more stay on. That is a vote of confidence in the education authority. The gap between Hampshire and the rest of England is as wide in the numbers who stay on at 17–22 per cent. in Hampshire and 18·4 per cent nationally. Parents are satisfied with what has been achieved. That is another vote of confidence in the Hampshire authority.
The third important aspect is results. I know all about the ethos of schools, but

results matter, and 14·1 per cent. of leavers in Hampshire got one or more A-levels, compared with 12·6 per cent. in the rest of England. I wish that we could see such results in the Inner London Education Authority. If parents in the ILEA area hear about these results they will move to Hampshire, perhaps to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and vote Conservative when they get there. At the other end of the scale, 13·8 per cent. of school leavers nationally have no results, but in Hampshire, where education is given such importance and works so well, only 10·3 per cent. leave without any grading.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to put on record that, despite severe difficulties and the fact that the balance of the rate support grant has been against it, Hampshire education authority is doing a good job, and it is no wonder that parents and children have confidence in it.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute past One o'clock.